Buzard v. Houston was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in another state. The case involved a contract between two parties, Buzard and Houston, in which Buzard agreed to pay Houston a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. The contract was made in the state of Ohio, but Houston sued Buzard in the state of Texas to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the state of Texas could not enforce the contract because it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in Ohio and was therefore subject to the laws of Ohio. The Court also noted that the contract was not made in Texas and therefore the state of Texas had no authority to enforce it. The Court's decision in Buzard v. Houston established the principle that a state court cannot enforce a contract that was made in another state. This principle is still followed today and is an important part of contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Buzard v. Houston, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under Texas law, a contract for personal services could not be assigned to another party without the consent of both parties involved in the original agreement. The majority had held that such an assignment was valid because it did not involve any transfer of property or money; however, Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and stated that contracts involving personal services were different from those involving tangible items like land or goods since they required more than just a simple exchange of money or property. Furthermore, he noted that if assignments of such contracts were allowed without consent from both parties then employers would have too much power over their employees as they could easily assign their labor to someone else at any time without consulting them first. Therefore, Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that allowing these types of assignments violated public policy and should not be permitted under Texas law.