Hurst v. Hollingsworth was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to hear a case involving a dispute between two citizens of different states. The case arose when the plaintiff, Hurst, sued the defendant, Hollingsworth, in a state court in Pennsylvania. Hollingsworth argued that the state court did not have jurisdiction over the case because the parties were citizens of different states. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have jurisdiction over the case, and that the state court was not required to follow the rules of the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was not bound by the rules of the federal court, and that the state court had the authority to hear the case. The Court also held that the state court was not required to follow the rules of the federal court in deciding the case. The Court concluded that the state court had the authority to hear the case and to decide it according to the laws of the state.

In Hurst v. Hollingsworth, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a federal district court in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for breach of contract. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Justice Field dissented, arguing that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has exclusive authority to regulate appeals from federal courts and thus any attempt by a state court to do so would be unconstitutional. He further argued that since this case involved matters arising out of contracts made within one state, there was no reason why it should not be heard in its own local courts as provided for by law rather than having them adjudicated elsewhere or denied altogether due to lack of jurisdiction on behalf of those courts. In conclusion, he stated his belief that if Congress had intended otherwise they would have clearly expressed their wishes through legislation instead leaving such decisions up individual states' discretion when dealing with cases involving citizens residing within their borders