Hurt v. Hollingsworth was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Hurt and Hollingsworth, over a contract. Hurt had sued Hollingsworth in a state court, and Hollingsworth had appealed the decision to a federal court. The federal court had then issued a writ of error to the state court, which Hurt argued was an unconstitutional exercise of power. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to the state court. The Court reasoned that the writ of error was an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which was not granted to the federal court by the Constitution. The Court also noted that the writ of error was an exercise of power that was not authorized by the state court. As such, the Court held that the writ of error was invalid and that the state court had the authority to decide the case.

In Hurt v. Hollingsworth, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant in which the cause of action arose outside of the state. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did not exist and dismissed the case. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it would be unjust to deny relief when there is no other forum available for redress due to lack of diversity between parties or because one party resides out-of-state. He further argued that states should have authority over cases involving their citizens regardless of where they arise since it is within their power to do so under their police powers and general welfare provisions as long as they are consistent with federal law. In conclusion, he stated that denying access to justice based on residence alone would be contrary both constitutional principles and public policy considerations.