Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company v. Worthington was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company and Worthington over a contract for lithographic printing services. Worthington had contracted with Forbes to print a large number of lithographs, but Worthington failed to pay for the services. Forbes sued Worthington for breach of contract and sought damages. The Supreme Court held that Forbes was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court found that Worthington had breached the contract by failing to pay for the services, and that Forbes was entitled to recover the reasonable value of the services provided. The Court also held that Forbes was entitled to recover damages for the loss of profits that it would have earned had Worthington paid for the services. The Court's decision in Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company v. Worthington established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for the reasonable value of the services provided, as well as any lost profits that would have been earned had the contract been fulfilled. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving breach of contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company v. Worthington, Justice Brewer argued that the majority had failed to consider a key precedent in their decision. He pointed out that in an earlier case, it was held that when a contract is made between two parties and one of them fails to perform his part of the agreement, then he cannot be allowed to take advantage of any subsequent changes in circumstances which would have been beneficial to him if he had performed as agreed upon. In this particular case, Worthington had contracted with Forbes for lithographs but later refused payment due on those contracts after they were completed by Forbes; thus Justice Brewer felt it was unfair for Worthington not to pay what he owed despite having benefited from the goods received. He concluded by stating that since there was no evidence presented at trial indicating any fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of either party involved in this dispute, then Worthington should be required to fulfill his contractual obligations and pay what he owes according to its terms.