In Farley v. Kittson, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between Kittson, a Minnesota resident, and Farley, a Wisconsin resident. Kittson had agreed to pay Farley a certain sum of money in exchange for Farley's promise to deliver a certain quantity of wheat to Kittson. Farley had delivered the wheat, but Kittson had failed to pay the agreed-upon sum. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was made in Minnesota, and that the parties had agreed to be bound by the laws of that state. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to public policy, and that it was not in violation of any federal law. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Farley was entitled to the agreed-upon sum of money from Kittson.

In Farley v. Kittson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Minnesota statute that allowed for the sale of certain lands belonging to non-resident heirs violated the Constitution's Contract Clause. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause because there had been no contract between the parties and thus nothing in which either party could claim a vested right or interest. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while there may have been no express contract between the parties, an implied one existed due to their relationship as landlord and tenant; therefore, he argued that any attempt by Minnesota to interfere with these rights should be considered unconstitutional under Article I Section 10 of the Constitution's Contract Clause. He further argued that if such interference were allowed then states would be able to pass laws interfering with contracts at will without consequence or regard for private property rights protected by federal law.