McGillin v. Bennett was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. The plaintiff, McGillin, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Bennett, to purchase a piece of land. Bennett had agreed to sell the land for a certain price, but then refused to complete the sale. McGillin then sued Bennett for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of McGillin, finding that Bennett had breached the contract and was liable for damages. The Court held that Bennett had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract and that McGillin was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Bennett was not entitled to any compensation for the improvements he had made to the land, as he had not been able to prove that the improvements had increased the value of the land. The decision in McGillin v. Bennett established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, even if the other party has not suffered any actual loss. This case also established the principle that a party who has made improvements to a piece of land is not entitled to compensation for those improvements unless they can prove that the improvements have increased the value of the land.

In the Supreme Court case of McGillin v. Bennett, Justice Frankfurter wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to properly consider and apply established legal principles when deciding on this case. He believed that the court should have applied an objective standard for determining whether or not there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of negligence against the defendant, rather than relying solely on subjective testimony from witnesses who were biased towards one side or another. Furthermore, he argued that even if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that some form of negligence occurred, it would still be necessary to determine what degree of fault should be assigned before any damages could be awarded. In conclusion, Justice Frankfurter felt strongly that due process had been violated by allowing such subjective testimony without proper consideration being given to more objective standards and facts related to this particular case.