Frederic D. Conrad brought a case against David Griffey to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that Conrad claimed he was owed by Griffey, and which had been secured by a mortgage on certain real estate in Kentucky. In his complaint, Conrad argued that he should be allowed to recover the amount due from Griffey's personal property as well as from any other assets held by him or his wife at the time of judgment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Griffin, finding that under Kentucky law at the time, married women were not liable for their husband's debts unless they had signed away their rights to do so prior to entering into marriage with her husband - something Mrs. Griffin had not done in this instance. As such, neither she nor her separate property could be used towards satisfying Mr Griifin’s debt obligations without her express consent; thus denying plaintiff’s claim for recovery against either party involved in this case

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in another state should be enforced in Tennessee. The majority opinion held that it should not be enforced because the contract did not comply with certain laws of Tennessee. However, Justice Catron dissented from this decision and argued that since the contract was valid when it was made in another state, then it should also be enforceable in Tennessee. He further argued that if contracts were only enforceable within their own states, then interstate commerce would suffer greatly as businesses could no longer rely on agreements they make outside of their home states being upheld elsewhere. In conclusion, Justice Catron believed that enforcing contracts across different states is essential for interstate commerce and therefore urged his colleagues to reverse the lower court's ruling and uphold the validity of Conrad's agreement with Griffey.