Carson v. Dunham 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, Carson and Dunham, in which Carson agreed to pay Dunham a certain amount of money for the sale of a horse. Dunham sued Carson in a state court in Illinois, where the contract was made, and the court ruled in favor of Dunham. The Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract, even though it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires states to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to the public policy of the state of Illinois, and thus the state court had the authority to enforce it. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract between Carson and Dunham, even though it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, and that it was not contrary to the public policy of the state of Illinois.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Carson v. Dunham, arguing that the court should not have reversed a decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas. He argued that it was an error to reverse this decision because there was no evidence presented by either party which contradicted or impeached any material fact found by the state court and accepted as true by both parties before they came to federal court. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress had given jurisdiction over cases arising from state courts only when those decisions were contrary to some principle of law declared by Congress or established in prior decisions made by other courts. In this case, neither condition applied since there was no dispute regarding facts and no conflicting principles between state and federal laws at issue here. Therefore, he concluded that it would be improper for a federal court to interfere with a judgment rendered in accordance with applicable law simply because its own view on how such matters should be decided differed from what had been done previously at another level of government.