Cragin v. Lovell, Executor was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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, Lovell and Cragin, in which Lovell agreed to pay Cragin a certain sum of money in exchange for a deed to a piece of property. Lovell failed to make the payment, and Cragin sued in a state court in Massachusetts. Lovell argued that the contract was made in New York and that the Massachusetts court had no jurisdiction to enforce it. The Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts court had jurisdiction to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable in the state where it was made, and that the Massachusetts court had the power to enforce it. The Court also held that the contract was not void because it was made in another state, and that the Massachusetts court had the power to enforce it. The Court's decision in Cragin v. Lovell, Executor established that a state court can enforce a contract that was made in another state. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the idea that a state court can enforce a contract that was made in another state.

In Cragin v. Lovell, Executor, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could hear an action brought by a non-resident against an executor of a will in that state. The majority opinion held that such actions were not permissible under the Constitution and laws of the United States. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that it was within Congress’s power to allow states to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents; and secondly, he contended that even if Congress had not done so explicitly or implicitly through legislation or treaty obligations with foreign countries, then there would be no constitutional impediment for states exercising such authority as long as they did so without violating any other provision of law. In conclusion Justice Field stated his belief “that every State has inherent power to enforce its judgments against persons residing beyond its limits who have been served with process within them."