Gandy v. Marble 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, Gandy and Marble, in which Gandy agreed to pay Marble a certain amount of money for a certain amount of goods. Marble sued Gandy in a state court in Texas for breach of contract. Gandy argued that the contract was made in Louisiana and that the Texas court had no jurisdiction to enforce it. The Supreme Court held that the Texas court did have jurisdiction to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable in Louisiana, and that the Texas court could enforce it as long as it did not conflict with the laws of Louisiana. The Court also held that the Texas court could not modify the terms of the contract, as that would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Texas court had jurisdiction to enforce the contract between Gandy and Marble, but could not modify the terms of the contract. This decision established that a state court can enforce a contract made in another state, as long as it does not conflict with the laws of the state in which the contract was made.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gandy v. Marble, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of this Court, a party who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land is entitled to recover damages for all rents and profits received by another during their wrongful possession. The majority had held otherwise, finding that such recovery was not available where there had been no actual physical entry onto the property or ouster of its rightful owner. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion on two grounds: firstly, he noted that it contradicted existing case law; secondly, he argued that it failed to take into account how difficult it can be for a plaintiff who has been wrongfully dispossessed from proving any actual damage suffered as a result of their loss in possession - particularly when they have no access to records kept by those who were unlawfully occupying their land. In his view, denying them compensation for lost rents and profits would leave them without adequate remedy against those responsible for depriving them of their rights.