White v. Cannon was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1867. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a slave. The plaintiff, White, claimed that he had purchased the slave from the defendant, Cannon, and that Cannon had failed to deliver the slave to him. The Supreme Court held that White was entitled to the slave, as Cannon had failed to deliver the slave to White as promised. The Court also held that White was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the contract between White and Cannon was valid and enforceable, and that Cannon had breached the contract by failing to deliver the slave to White. The Court also held that White was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, as he had suffered a loss due to Cannon's failure to deliver the slave. The Court also held that White was entitled to the slave, as Cannon had failed to deliver the slave to White as promised. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that White was entitled to the slave, as Cannon had failed to deliver the slave to White as promised. The Court also held that White was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, as he had suffered a loss due to Cannon's failure to deliver the slave. This case established the principle that a contract is enforceable and that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages.

In White v. Cannon, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the defendant resided in a different state. The majority opinion held that such suits could not be maintained without the consent of both states involved and that it was up to Congress to determine if federal courts should have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of cases. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that there is no constitutional basis for requiring congressional approval before allowing citizens access to justice through their own courts when they are suing someone who resides in another state. He argued further that denying individuals access to their own courts would lead them into "a labyrinth" where they may never find justice due to lack of resources or knowledge about how best pursue legal remedies available outside their home states.