White v. Hart was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, White, had contracted with the defendant, Hart, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. White paid the full amount, but Hart refused to deliver the boat. White then sued Hart for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Hart was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Hart had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and that White was entitled to damages. The Court also held that White was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest. The Court's decision in White v. Hart established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This case also established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of upholding contractual obligations.

In White v. Hart, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked personal service of process on the defendant and thus could not exercise its authority over him. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that due process does not require personal service in order for a court to acquire jurisdiction over someone who is present within its territorial boundaries. He argued that if such were required, then any person living in one state would be able to avoid being subject to suit in another simply by refusing service or leaving before it can be served upon them. Furthermore, he noted that even though there may have been some technical irregularities with respect to how notice was given here, those irregularities should not prevent justice from being done between these two parties since both were aware of the proceedings and neither party objected at trial or on appeal about lack of proper notice having been provided.