Dow v. Beidelman was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in another state. The case involved a contract between a man named Dow and a man named Beidelman. Dow had agreed to pay Beidelman a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property located in Illinois. Beidelman then moved to Wisconsin and sued Dow in a Wisconsin court for the money he was owed. The Supreme Court held that the Wisconsin court did not have the authority to enforce the contract because it was made in Illinois. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in Illinois and was therefore subject to the laws of that state. The Court also noted that the contract was not a contract of adhesion, meaning that both parties had equal bargaining power and had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court concluded that the Wisconsin court did not have the authority to enforce the contract because it was made in Illinois. This decision established the principle that a state court cannot enforce a contract that was made in another state. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and is still an important part of contract law today.

In Dow v. Beidelman, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a nonresident against another nonresident in regards to land located within the state. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did exist and that it was not necessary for either party to be present or domiciled in the state at the time of filing suit. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that due process requires both parties to have sufficient contacts with the forum before they can be subjected to its laws and courts. He argued further that since neither party resided nor were present in Wisconsin when suit was filed, there could be no basis for subjecting them to its jurisdiction without violating their constitutional rights under due process of law.