Miller v. Sherry was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1864. The plaintiff, Miller, had purchased goods from the defendant, Sherry, and paid for them with a promissory note that was due on demand. When Miller failed to pay when demanded by Sherry, he sued him for breach of contract. The court held that since there were no words of limitation or time specified in the note itself as to when payment should be made then it must be considered payable on demand and therefore Miller's failure to pay constituted a breach of contract which entitled Sherry to damages. This decision established an important precedent regarding contracts involving notes without any stated terms as they are generally understood to mean "on demand".

In Miller v. Sherry, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction in this matter as it fell under the exclusive authority of federal courts due to its interstate nature. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that although there may be some cases where federal courts should take precedence, such as those involving disputes between citizens of different states, this particular case did not fall into one of these categories because both parties were residents within the same state at all times relevant to their dispute. He further argued that allowing state courts to hear such matters would promote judicial efficiency by avoiding unnecessary delays associated with transferring cases from one court system to another and would also prevent litigants from having their claims heard twice in separate jurisdictions for essentially identical causes of action.