Bigelow v. Forrest was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract made in another state. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Bigelow and Forrest, over a contract made in New York. Bigelow had agreed to pay Forrest a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain number of shares of stock. Forrest sued Bigelow in a Pennsylvania court for breach of contract. Bigelow argued that the Pennsylvania court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the contract because it was made in New York. The Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania court did have jurisdiction to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable in New York, and that the Pennsylvania court could enforce it as long as it did not conflict with the laws of New York. The Court also held that the contract was not void because it was made in another state, and that the parties were bound by the terms of the contract. The decision in Bigelow v. Forrest established the principle that a state court can enforce a contract made in another state, as long as it does not conflict with the laws of the state where the contract was made. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is an important part of contract law in the United States.

In Bigelow v. Forrest, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in that same state. The majority opinion held that it did not, as such actions were prohibited under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while he agreed with the majority on its interpretation of the clause itself, he believed there was sufficient evidence to show that Congress had intended for states to have concurrent jurisdiction over cases involving citizens of different states. He argued further that if Congress had meant otherwise they would have explicitly stated so in their legislation or provided some other means for enforcing their intent. Ultimately, Field concluded his dissent by emphasizing how important it is for courts to interpret statutes according to what Congress actually intended rather than simply relying on literal interpretations of language used in those statutes.