Fuller v. Yentzer 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 two parties, Fuller and Yentzer, who had entered into a contract in the state of Ohio. Yentzer had agreed to pay Fuller a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. Yentzer failed to make the payment, and Fuller sued in the state of Indiana. The Indiana court ruled in favor of Fuller and ordered Yentzer to pay the amount due. Yentzer appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Indiana court had no jurisdiction to enforce a contract made in another state. The Supreme Court held that the Indiana court did have jurisdiction to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable in the state of Ohio, and that the Indiana court had the power to enforce it. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to the public policy of either state, and that the Indiana court had the power to enforce it. The Court concluded that the Indiana court had the authority to enforce the contract and ordered Yentzer to pay the amount due.

In Fuller v. Yentzer, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed of trust given by the defendant to secure payment of a debt was valid and enforceable. The majority opinion held that it was not, as there had been no consideration for its execution. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that although there may have been no new consideration exchanged between the parties when they entered into their agreement, an existing debt could be sufficient to constitute consideration in certain circumstances. He further argued that even if some additional benefit or detriment were necessary for such an agreement to be considered binding under contract law principles, then here both parties had received something: namely, security against nonpayment on one side and assurance of payment on the other side - thus providing adequate consideration for enforcement of the deed of trust at issue in this case.