Hollister, Collectors v. Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1884. The case involved a dispute between two creditors over the distribution of a debtor's assets. The debtor had been declared bankrupt and the creditors were arguing over who should receive the proceeds from the sale of the debtor's assets. The Supreme Court held that the creditor who had the first lien on the debtor's assets was entitled to receive the proceeds from the sale of the assets before any other creditors. The Court also held that the other creditors were not entitled to any of the proceeds until the first lien creditor had been paid in full. The Court's decision established the principle that creditors with a prior lien on a debtor's assets have priority over other creditors in the distribution of the debtor's assets.

In Hollister, Collectors v. Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be rescinded by one of them without any legal consequences. The majority opinion held that such rescission was permissible and did not constitute a breach of contract or give rise to any damages for the other party. Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that it would lead to uncertainty in contractual relationships and encourage people to enter into contracts with no intention of fulfilling their obligations under them. He argued that if one party were allowed to unilaterally rescind an agreement after part performance then there would be little incentive for either side to perform their duties faithfully as they could simply walk away whenever they chose without consequence. Furthermore, he noted that allowing unilateral rescission would also undermine public confidence in contracts generally which is essential for commerce and economic growth