Doane v. Glenn was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to order a party to pay a debt that was secured by a mortgage on real estate located in another state. The case arose when the plaintiff, Doane, sued the defendant, Glenn, in a state court in New York for the payment of a debt that was secured by a mortgage on real estate located in Pennsylvania. The state court ordered Glenn to pay the debt, but Glenn argued that the court did not have the authority to do so because the real estate was located in another state. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to order Glenn to pay the debt. The Court reasoned that the state court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the dispute, and that the court had the power to enforce its judgment. The Court also noted that the state court had the power to enforce its judgment in the state where the real estate was located, and that the state court's judgment was entitled to full faith and credit in the other state. The Court concluded that the state court had the authority to order Glenn to pay the debt.

In Doane v. Glenn, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties from different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked diversity of citizenship among the parties involved in the dispute. Justice Field dissented, arguing that there was sufficient diversity of citizenship for federal courts to exercise their power under Article III and Section 2 of the Constitution. He argued that Congress had granted federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction over cases where citizens from different states were involved in disputes concerning contracts or other matters arising out of such contracts, regardless if they occurred within or outside a particular state's boundaries. Furthermore, he noted that this interpretation would be consistent with prior decisions by both lower and higher courts which recognized similar jurisdictional authority for federal tribunals when dealing with interstate controversies regarding contractual obligations