Willinks v. Hollingsworth et al. was a landmark case in the early history of the United States Supreme Court, involving an appeal from a decision by the Circuit Court for Delaware regarding a contract dispute between two parties. The plaintiff, Willinks, had contracted with defendant Hollingsworth to build and deliver certain goods at specific prices; however, when delivery occurred it was found that some of the items were not as specified in their agreement and thus did not meet contractual requirements. In its ruling on this case, the Supreme Court held that contracts must be performed according to their terms or else they are voidable at either party's discretion; furthermore, if one party breaches such an agreement then they may be liable for damages resulting from said breach. This ruling established important legal precedent which has been used ever since to determine liability in cases where one party fails to fulfill their obligations under contract law.

In Willinks v. Hollingsworth et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens from different states. The majority opinion held that it did not, as such cases were within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts. Justice Story dissented, arguing that this interpretation would lead to an absurd result and deprive individuals of their right to access justice in state courts. He argued that Congress had never intended for all interstate disputes to be heard exclusively by federal courts and noted that there was no express provision in any statute or constitutional clause granting such authority. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress wanted only federal courts to hear these types of cases they should have made it clear through legislation rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation.