Jacoway v. Denton was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff, Jacoway, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Denton, to purchase a tract of land in Arkansas. The contract stated that Jacoway would pay Denton $1,000 for the land, and that Denton would convey the land to Jacoway upon payment. Jacoway paid the $1,000 to Denton, but Denton refused to convey the land to Jacoway. Jacoway then sued Denton for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Denton was liable for breach of contract, and ordered him to convey the land to Jacoway. The Court also held that Jacoway was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and awarded him $1,000 in damages. The Court's decision in Jacoway v. Denton established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the damages should be equal to the amount of the contract. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and is still used today as a basis for awarding damages in breach of contract cases.

In the case of Jacoway v. Denton, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against a citizen of that same state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the suit. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution, which grants federal courts original jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states, any party may bring their claim before either a federal or state court regardless if both parties are citizens of one particular state. He further noted that Congress has given authority to all courts within each State to hear such suits as long as they do not conflict with existing laws or treaties made by Congress itself. Thus he concluded that since there were no conflicting laws preventing it in this case, then the State Court should be allowed to exercise its power and hear this dispute between two citizens living within its borders