In Inglee v. Coolidge, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens from different states. The plaintiff, Inglee, was a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania while the defendant, Coolidge, was a citizen and resident of Massachusetts. The dispute arose when Inglee claimed that he had entered into an agreement with Coolidge to purchase certain goods at specific prices but that Coolidge refused to deliver them as promised. In its ruling on this case, the Supreme Court held that since both parties were citizens in different states and there was no federal law governing such disputes between individuals from separate states then it fell within the jurisdiction of state courts to decide upon any claims arising out of such contracts or agreements made by those residing in different jurisdictions.

In Inglee v. Coolidge, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by law. The majority of justices held that it could not, as there was no way to determine how much each party should receive in exchange for their performance under the contract. Justice Story dissented from this opinion and argued that contracts are binding on both parties regardless of partial performance and should be enforced according to their terms unless they violate public policy or morals. He further stated that if one party has already completed its obligations under the contract then it is entitled to compensation for its labor even if the other party has not yet fulfilled theirs; otherwise, he reasoned, people would have little incentive to enter into any contractual agreements at all due to fear of being taken advantage of without recourse.