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, arguing that the Indiana court did not have the authority to enforce a contract that was made in another state. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Fuller, holding that the Indiana court had the authority to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court noted that the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. As such, the Indiana court was required to give full faith and credit to the contract that was made in Ohio. 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 Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to decide a case involving land located in two different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority over one of the parcels of land involved in the dispute. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that under existing law, courts could exercise concurrent jurisdiction over cases involving multiple parcels of land located in different states if they were part of an integrated transaction or contract. He further argued that since there was no evidence presented to suggest otherwise, it should be assumed that all parties intended for their disputes to be resolved by one court rather than having them split between two separate jurisdictions. As such, he concluded that the state court had proper authority to hear and decide on this particular case as long as both parties consented thereto.