Smith v. Stevens was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1870. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Smith, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Stevens, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Smith paid the full amount, but Stevens refused to deliver the boat. Smith then sued Stevens for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Smith was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, from Stevens. The Court reasoned that Stevens had breached the contract by failing to deliver the boat, and that Smith was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Smith was entitled to interest on the purchase price, as the contract had specified that the purchase price was to be paid in full at the time of delivery. The Court's decision in Smith v. Stevens established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, including interest, to the other party. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving breach of contract.

In Smith v. Stevens, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens from different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction over such cases and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that Congress had given state courts concurrent jurisdiction in certain matters under its power to regulate commerce among the several states. He further argued that since this case involved interstate commerce, it should be within the purview of both federal and state courts as long as there were no conflicting laws or regulations at either level which would prevent them from hearing it. Furthermore, he noted that even if Congress had not explicitly granted concurrent jurisdiction to these types of cases, they still could be heard by both levels due to their inherent nature as being related to interstate commerce and therefore subject to regulation by both governments simultaneously.