Hawkins v. Glenn was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to modify a contract between two parties. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Hawkins, and the defendant, Glenn, in which Hawkins agreed to provide Glenn with a certain amount of timber. The contract was modified by the state court, and Hawkins argued that the modification was invalid because the state court did not have the authority to modify the contract. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to modify the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was not a matter of federal law, and therefore the state court had the authority to modify it. The Court also noted that the contract was not a matter of public policy, and therefore the state court had the authority to modify it. The Court concluded that the state court had the authority to modify the contract, and the modification was valid. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to modify the contract between Hawkins and Glenn. The Court reasoned that the contract was not a matter of federal law or public policy, and therefore the state court had the authority to modify it. The modification was valid, and the Court upheld the decision of the state court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hawkins v. Glenn, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to "grave consequences." He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether one party had acted fraudulently or not. In this case, he believed that the defendant had been misled by false representations made by the plaintiff and thus should not have been held liable for breach of contract. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if such contracts were allowed to stand despite fraudulent inducement then it could open up a Pandora's box of potential litigation as any dissatisfied party could claim they were defrauded into entering into an agreement. Therefore, he concluded that it was necessary for courts to enforce contracts only when both parties entered into them with full knowledge and understanding of their obligations under said agreement.