Thatcher v. Kaucher was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Ohio. The plaintiff, Thatcher, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Kaucher, in 1876. Kaucher, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received full payment for the land. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Thatcher, ruling that the sale was valid and that he was the rightful owner of the land. The Court reasoned that Kaucher had accepted partial payment for the land and had not taken any action to reclaim it for over fifteen years. As such, the Court held that Kaucher had effectively abandoned his claim to the land and that Thatcher was the rightful owner. The Court also noted that the statute of limitations had expired, meaning that Kaucher could no longer challenge the sale.

In Thatcher v. Kaucher, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in regards to property located within the state's borders. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction, as there were no contacts between either party and the forum state sufficient enough for its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that due process requires only minimal contact with the forum state for its courts to assert personal jurisdiction over parties involved in litigation concerning property situated within its boundaries. He argued that since both parties owned land in Kansas and were aware of their interests therein when they entered into their agreement, they should be subject to suit there regardless of where they resided or conducted business at any given time. Furthermore, he noted that if states are unable to protect citizens' rights regarding real estate transactions occurring within their borders then those rights will become illusory and meaningless; thus making it necessary for states like Kansas which lack general long arm statutes granting them power over out-of-state defendants still able exercise some degree of control through other means such as exercising specific personal jurisdiction based on minimum contacts with respect certain types of cases involving local property disputes