Dugger v. Tayloe 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 two parties, Dugger and Tayloe, in which Dugger agreed to pay Tayloe a certain amount of money for the sale of a tract of land in Georgia. The contract was made in Virginia, and Tayloe sued Dugger in a Georgia court to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the Georgia court had no jurisdiction to enforce the contract because it was made in Virginia. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in Virginia and was therefore subject to the laws of that state. The Court further held that the Georgia court could not enforce the contract because it was not made in Georgia and was therefore not subject to the laws of that state. The Court's decision in Dugger v. Tayloe established the principle that a state court cannot enforce a contract that was made in another state. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and it is an important part of the law of contracts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Dugger v. Tayloe, arguing that the majority had misapplied a prior Supreme Court decision and failed to consider relevant facts of the case. He argued that under Georgia law, which was applicable in this case, a contract for personal services could not be transferred without consent from both parties involved. The majority opinion had relied on an earlier Supreme Court decision involving contracts for goods or chattels as precedent; however Justice Field argued that these two types of contracts were fundamentally different and should not have been treated similarly by the court. Furthermore, he noted that there was no evidence presented at trial indicating any agreement between Tayloe and Dugger regarding transferability of their contract; thus it would be unjust to allow such transfer without due consideration given to all parties involved.