Fabbri v. Murphy 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, Fabbri and Murphy, in which Fabbri agreed to pay Murphy a certain amount of money for a piece of property located in New York. The contract was made in New Jersey, and Fabbri failed to make the payments as agreed. Murphy then sued Fabbri in a New York court, seeking to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the New York court had the authority to enforce the contract, even though it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable under the laws of both states, and that the New York court had the power to enforce it. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to public policy, and that the parties had the right to enter into the contract and to have it enforced. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the New York court had the authority to enforce the contract between Fabbri and Murphy, even though it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable under the laws of both states, and that the New York court had the power to enforce it.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Fabbri v. Murphy, a case concerning the right of an individual to bring suit against another for damages caused by negligence. He argued that while it was true that individuals were not allowed to sue each other in tort cases at common law, this did not mean they could never do so under any circumstances. Instead, he argued that courts should be able to recognize exceptions when appropriate and allow such suits if there is sufficient cause for doing so. In this particular case, Justice Field believed there was enough evidence presented by plaintiff Fabbri to warrant allowing him to proceed with his claim against defendant Murphy for damages resulting from her negligent actions. He concluded by stating that denying Fabbri's claim would be unjust and contrary both "to reason and authority."