Adams v. Adams was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of a husband's right to control his wife's property. The case involved a dispute between a husband and wife over the ownership of a piece of property. The husband, John Adams, had purchased the property in his own name and had taken out a mortgage on it. The wife, Mary Adams, had contributed to the purchase of the property and had paid off the mortgage. When the couple separated, Mary sought to have the property transferred to her name. The Supreme Court held that the husband had the right to control the property, as it had been purchased in his name and he had taken out the mortgage. The Court noted that the wife had contributed to the purchase of the property, but that the husband had the right to control it. The Court also noted that the wife had paid off the mortgage, but that this did not give her any right to the property. The Court concluded that the husband had the right to control the property and that the wife had no right to it.

In Adams v. Adams, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action for divorce brought by a husband against his wife in which he sought alimony and division of property. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it violated public policy as expressed in federal statutes prohibiting such actions between citizens of different states. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had no authority to interfere with the power of individual states to determine their own laws regarding marriage and divorce. He argued further that if Congress could regulate matters concerning marriage and divorce within each state, then it would be able to override any other area traditionally reserved for state control under the Tenth Amendment's reservation clause. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing Congress to dictate how marriages are dissolved would lead down a slippery slope towards complete federal control over all aspects of family law - something he felt should remain firmly within the purview of individual states' rights.