Dainese v. Kendall was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a foreign judgment could be enforced in the United States. The case involved a dispute between two Italian citizens, Dainese and Kendall, over a debt owed by Kendall to Dainese. Dainese had obtained a judgment against Kendall in an Italian court, and sought to enforce the judgment in the United States. The Supreme Court held that the foreign judgment could not be enforced in the United States. The Court reasoned that the foreign judgment was not binding in the United States because it was not based on the laws of the United States. The Court noted that the foreign judgment was based on the laws of Italy, and that the United States had no obligation to enforce a foreign judgment based on foreign law. The Court also noted that the foreign judgment was not binding in the United States because it was not obtained in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the Italian court did not have jurisdiction over the parties, as they were both citizens of Italy, and the dispute did not involve any property located in Italy. The Court concluded that the foreign judgment could not be enforced in the United States, and that Dainese would have to pursue his claim against Kendall in the Italian courts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Dainese v. Kendall, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or logic. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms and conditions, regardless of whether it is written or oral. Furthermore, he noted that if one party had been misled into entering into an agreement due to misrepresentation from another party then they should have recourse for damages under common law principles of fraud and deceit. In this case, Justice Field believed there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Mr. Kendall had made false representations about his ability to obtain title insurance which induced Mrs Dainese into signing the deed; thus she should be entitled to recover her losses as a result of relying on those representations when entering into the contract with him.