In Danforth v. Wear, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract between two parties could not be enforced if it was made with an intent to defraud creditors. The case involved a debtor who had entered into a contract with another party in order to avoid paying his debts and protect his property from being seized by creditors. The court found that such contracts were voidable at the option of any creditor affected by them, as they violated public policy and constituted fraud against those creditors. This decision established precedent for future cases involving fraudulent contracts intended to evade payment of debt obligations or otherwise harm creditors' rights.

In Danforth v. Wear, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the defendant resided in a different state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no constitutional prohibition preventing states from exercising their own judicial power; secondly, he maintained that if Congress had intended to deny states this authority they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it open for interpretation as they had done with other matters related to interstate commerce. He concluded his dissent by stating "it is better for us never to enter into these delicate questions" and suggested instead that each individual state should be allowed to determine its own laws regarding jurisdictional issues between citizens of different states without interference from the federal government or judiciary system.