Strawbridge et al. v. Curtiss et al., was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1806. The dispute arose when Strawbridge and his co-plaintiffs sued Curtiss for failing to pay on an agreement that he would purchase goods from them at a certain price, as well as damages for breach of contract. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their claim because they did not provide sufficient evidence of the terms of their agreement with Curtiss or any proof that he had breached it; therefore, they were unable to recover any damages from him. Furthermore, the court ruled that even if there had been sufficient evidence presented, it could not be used against Curtis since contracts are only binding between parties who have agreed upon them and no third party can be bound by such agreements without their consent or knowledge. This ruling established important precedent regarding contract law in America which still stands today: all parties must agree upon contractual obligations before those obligations become legally enforceable

In Strawbridge et al. v. Curtiss et al., Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was too broad and could lead to unintended consequences for other cases involving similar facts. He noted that the Court had previously held, in another case, that an executor of a will could not be sued without first obtaining permission from the court where probate proceedings were pending; however, this ruling did not apply to all executors or administrators of estates as it only applied when there was no dispute over who should receive what portion of an estate. In this case, Marshall argued that since there was a dispute between two parties over who should receive what portion of an estate (the plaintiffs and defendants), then they should have been allowed to sue each other directly without having to obtain permission from any court beforehand. Ultimately, Marshall believed that allowing such suits would provide more protection for creditors and beneficiaries than if they were required to go through lengthy legal proceedings before being able to seek redress for their grievances against one another.