William B. Morris v. Samuel Shriner et al was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1868. The case involved a dispute between Morris and Shriner over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. Morris had agreed to purchase the steamboat from Shriner for $2,000, but Shriner refused to deliver the boat after Morris had paid the full amount. Morris then sued Shriner for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Morris was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, from Shriner. The Court reasoned that Shriner had breached the contract by refusing to deliver the boat, and that Morris was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Morris was entitled to recover the costs of the lawsuit, including attorney's fees. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Morris was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest and costs, from Shriner for breach of contract. The Court's decision established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, including attorney's fees, and that the non-breaching party is entitled to recover those damages.

In the case of William B. Morris v. Samuel Shriner et al, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a dispute between two citizens from different states when one party was not present in the state where suit was brought. The majority opinion held that it did have such jurisdiction and affirmed the judgment of the lower court, but Justice Field dissented on this point. He argued that under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, which grants federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving citizens from different states, only federal courts could hear such disputes unless both parties were physically present in a single state's territory at some point during litigation or if Congress passed legislation granting concurrent jurisdiction to state courts for these types of cases. Since neither situation applied here and no other constitutional provision gave authority to any other body besides federal courts to hear this type of case, he concluded that only they had proper authority in this matter and thus should have been given precedence by all involved parties instead of allowing an inferior court with limited powers take up what should be considered exclusively within its purview