In Filley v. Pope & Another, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the wife was entitled to the payments she was promised.

In Filley v. Pope & Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which no property or cause of action existed within the state. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did not exist and reversed the judgment of the lower court. In dissent, Justice Field argued that while it is true that states cannot exercise power over persons who are not present within their borders, this case involved two parties who were both absent from the forum state at all times relevant to this suit; thus, there was no need for any party to be subject to personal service of process in order for justice to be served. He further noted that if one party could bring suit against another without being personally served then why should they not have access to courts located outside their own home states? As such, he concluded that since neither party resided in nor owned property in Missouri (the forum state), there was nothing preventing them from bringing suit before its courts and therefore those courts had jurisdiction over this matter.