William F. Davidson v. Jacob L. Starcher was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1868. The case involved a dispute between Davidson and Starcher over a contract for the sale of a tract of land in West Virginia. Davidson had agreed to purchase the land from Starcher for $2,000, but Starcher refused to convey the land to Davidson. Davidson then brought suit against Starcher in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia. The Circuit Court found in favor of Davidson and ordered Starcher to convey the land to Davidson. Starcher appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court, holding that Starcher was bound by the contract and was obligated to convey the land to Davidson. The Court also held that Davidson was entitled to recover damages from Starcher for his breach of the contract. The decision of the Supreme Court in this case established that parties to a contract are bound by its terms and that a breach of contract can result in damages being awarded to the non-breaching party. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of upholding contracts and the consequences of breaching them.

In the case of William F. Davidson v. Jacob L. Starcher, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which both parties were citizens of different states and neither party resided in the forum state at the time suit was filed or when judgment was rendered. The majority opinion held that such suits could not be maintained in any court other than those located within one of their respective home states, while Justice Field dissented on behalf of himself and two other justices arguing that it should be left to each individual state's legislature to determine if they wanted to allow such actions within their courts or not as long as there is no conflict with federal law. He argued that this would provide more flexibility for individuals who may have been wronged but are unable to bring suit due to jurisdictional issues, allowing them access justice through local courts instead being forced into costly litigation across multiple states just because they do not reside where the alleged wrongdoer does.