Struthers v. Drexel is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of goods. The plaintiff, Struthers, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Drexel, for the sale of goods. Struthers alleged that Drexel had breached the contract by failing to deliver the goods as promised. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Struthers had provided consideration in the form of money. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as both parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also held that Struthers was entitled to damages for Drexel's breach of the contract. The Court found that Struthers was entitled to the difference between the value of the goods he had contracted to receive and the value of the goods he had actually received. The Court also held that Struthers was entitled to interest on the amount of damages he was awarded. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Struthers was entitled to damages for Drexel's breach of the contract. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Struthers was entitled to the difference between the value of the goods he had contracted to receive and the value of the goods he had actually received, plus interest.

In Struthers v. Drexel, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could constitutionally impose taxes on out-of-state corporations that did business within its borders. The majority opinion held that such taxation was unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that states have an inherent right to tax any activity conducted within their boundaries regardless of where it originates or who is conducting it. He reasoned that since all activities are subject to local regulation by virtue of being conducted in a particular jurisdiction, then they should also be subject to taxation as well. Furthermore, he argued that if states were not allowed to tax these activities then they would be unable to raise revenue for essential services like public education and infrastructure maintenance without relying solely on property taxes—which would create an unfair burden on those living in poorer areas with lower property values.