Burthe v. Denis was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two French citizens, Burthe and Denis, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Burthe had agreed to purchase the land from Denis, but Denis refused to transfer the deed to Burthe. Burthe then sued Denis in a French court, and the court ruled in favor of Burthe. Denis then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of France, which also ruled in favor of Burthe. The Supreme Court of the United States then heard the case, and it ruled in favor of Burthe. The court held that the French court's decision was binding on the parties, and that the decision could not be overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court also held that the French court's decision was not subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision in Burthe v. Denis established the principle that foreign court decisions are binding on the parties involved, and that the decisions of foreign courts are not subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and it is an important part of international law.

In the case of Burthe v. Denis, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He believed that the Court had misinterpreted Louisiana law by allowing for an action to be brought against a third party who had no direct involvement with any contract between two other parties. According to Justice Field, this would lead to “endless confusion and litigation” as it would allow anyone who has been injured or damaged due to another person's breach of contract to bring suit against someone else entirely unconnected with said contract. Furthermore, he argued that such a ruling could potentially open up avenues for fraudsters looking for ways around contracts they have entered into but do not wish to honor their obligations under them. In conclusion, Justice Field felt strongly that the majority’s decision was incorrect and should be reversed on appeal if necessary so as not create further legal uncertainty in Louisiana courts going forward.