Walworth v. Harris was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1876. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff, Walworth, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Harris, to purchase a tract of land in the state of New York. Walworth had paid the purchase price in full, but Harris had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Walworth then sued Harris for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Harris was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Harris had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract and that Walworth was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Walworth was entitled to an injunction to prevent Harris from selling the land to anyone else. The decision in Walworth v. Harris established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages and may be enjoined from selling the property to another party. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of upholding contracts and the remedies available to a party who has been wronged by a breach of contract.

In the Supreme Court case Walworth v. Harris, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He believed that Congress had not intended to grant exclusive jurisdiction over public lands to state courts when it passed the Enabling Act of 1864, as this would have been an unconstitutional delegation of power from Congress to states. Furthermore, he argued that even if such authority existed under the act, it did not extend beyond those cases involving private parties and their disputes with each other; rather than extending into matters between individuals and government entities like in this case. As such, Justice Field concluded that federal district courts were still authorized by law to hear cases concerning public land titles regardless of any conflicting state court decisions on similar issues.