Hartranft v. Langfeld 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, Hartranft and Langfeld, who had entered into a contract in Pennsylvania. Langfeld then moved to New York and Hartranft sued him in a New York court for breach of contract. The New York court found in favor of Hartranft and ordered Langfeld to pay damages. Langfeld appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the New York court had no jurisdiction to enforce a contract made in Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court held that the New York court had jurisdiction to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable in both Pennsylvania and New York, and that the New York court had the authority to enforce it. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to the public policy of either state, and that the parties had not agreed to be bound by the laws of Pennsylvania. The Court concluded that the New York court had the authority to enforce the contract and that the judgment of the New York court should be affirmed.

The dissenting opinion in Hartranft v. Langfeld argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. The case involved a dispute over whether or not an executor of a will had the right to sell real estate owned by the deceased without obtaining court approval first. The majority held that such sales were permissible, but Justice Field dissented on this point, arguing that it was necessary for courts to approve all sales of real estate before they could be legally binding. He reasoned that since wills are contracts between parties, any sale made under them must also comply with contract law principles which require judicial oversight and approval prior to being validly executed. Furthermore, he noted that allowing executors to make such decisions unilaterally would lead to potential abuse as there is no guarantee they will act in good faith when making these transactions on behalf of their testator's estates. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent by urging reversal of the majority's ruling so as to ensure proper protection for those who have passed away and leave behind property subject to probate proceedings