Sevier v. Haskell 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, Sevier, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Haskell, to purchase a tract of land in Arkansas. The contract provided that Haskell would convey the land to Sevier upon payment of the purchase price. However, Haskell refused to convey the land to Sevier, claiming that the contract was void because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was properly executed and that Haskell had no legal basis for refusing to convey the land to Sevier. The Court also held that Haskell was liable for damages for breach of contract. The Court ordered Haskell to convey the land to Sevier and to pay damages for the breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Sevier and Haskell was valid and enforceable, and that Haskell was liable for damages for breach of contract. The Court ordered Haskell to convey the land to Sevier and to pay damages for the breach of contract.

In the case of Sevier v. Haskell, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which no property or cause of action arose within its boundaries. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the suit. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution, Congress has given all federal courts original jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states; secondly, he contended that even if Congress had not done so explicitly in this instance then they should be presumed to have intended for such suits to be heard by federal courts as part and parcel with their general grant of judicial power. He concluded his dissent by noting that while there may be good reasons why some actions between citizens should remain outside federal court's purview - namely those involving only local matters - but where substantial rights are at stake then it is better for them to err on side caution and allow these disputes into federal court rather than risk injustice being done through denying access altogether.