Gates v. Goodloe 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 individuals, Gates and Goodloe, in which Gates agreed to pay Goodloe a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. The contract was made in the state of Georgia, but Goodloe later sued Gates in the state of Alabama to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the state of Alabama could not enforce the contract because it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in Georgia and was therefore subject to the laws of that state. The Court also noted that the contract was not made in Alabama and therefore could not be enforced in that state. The Court concluded that the state of Alabama could not enforce the contract because it was made in another state. The decision in Gates v. Goodloe established the principle that a state court cannot enforce a contract that was made in another state. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and is an important part of contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gates v. Goodloe, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that the plaintiff had a valid claim to an interest in land based on his purchase of it from one of its owners, who had been given authority by another owner to sell it. The deed for this sale was recorded before any subsequent deeds were issued for other parts of the same property; thus, according to Justice Field, there could be no question as to which deed took precedence over others with respect to title or ownership rights. Furthermore, he noted that even if all parties involved knew about each other's claims at the time they entered into their respective contracts regarding this land - something which is not clear from either party's pleadings - such knowledge would still not invalidate any prior contract or agreement between them concerning it. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained that since both parties' interests in this property arose out of valid contracts and agreements made before any subsequent ones were executed involving different portions of said land, then those earlier contracts must take precedence over later ones regardless of what anyone may have known at the time they were signed.