In Connoyer et al. v. Schaeffer, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiff, Connoyer, and the defendant, Schaeffer. Connoyer had agreed to sell Schaeffer a tract of land for a certain sum of money, and Schaeffer had agreed to pay the sum in installments. Schaeffer had paid the first installment, but failed to pay the second. Connoyer then brought suit against Schaeffer, seeking to recover the unpaid balance. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was in writing, and that it had been signed by both parties. The Court also noted that the contract had been made in good faith, and that Schaeffer had paid the first installment. The Court concluded that the contract was binding on both parties, and that Connoyer was entitled to recover the unpaid balance from Schaeffer.

In Connoyer et al. v. Schaeffer, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment rendered in one state could be enforced in another state without being re-litigated there. The majority of justices held that such judgments were not enforceable and must be re-litigated if they are to have any effect outside of the original jurisdiction where they were issued. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that states should recognize each other’s judicial proceedings as valid and binding within their own borders unless there is clear evidence of fraud or collusion between parties involved in the case. He argued that it would be unfair for individuals who had already been through litigation once to then have to go through it again just because they moved across state lines; instead, he proposed an interstate compact which would allow states to mutually agree on recognizing each other's court decisions as valid and binding throughout all member states without having them relitigate every time someone moves from one place to another.