Hedrick v. Hughes was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to grant a divorce to a couple who had been married in another state. The case involved a couple, Mr. and Mrs. Hedrick, who had been married in the state of New York. After the marriage, the couple moved to the state of Pennsylvania, where they lived for several years. In Pennsylvania, the couple filed for a divorce, but the state court denied their request. The Hedricks then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to grant a divorce to the couple, as the marriage had been entered into in another state. The Court reasoned that the state court did not have the power to dissolve a marriage that had been entered into in another state, as this would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court also noted that the state court had no authority to grant a divorce to the couple, as the state of Pennsylvania did not recognize the marriage as valid. The Court's decision in Hedrick v. Hughes established that a state court does not have the authority to grant a divorce to a couple who had been married in another state. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has been used to support the notion that a state court cannot grant a divorce to a couple who had been married in another state.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hedrick v. Hughes, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would have far-reaching implications for future cases involving contracts between individuals. He argued that a contract is an agreement between two parties which creates mutual obligations; if one party fails to fulfill their obligation, then they are liable for damages as a result of breach of contract. In this case, he argued that there had been no breach on either side since both parties had fulfilled their respective obligations under the terms of the contract. Furthermore, he noted that it was not necessary for each party to receive equal consideration from one another in order to be bound by its terms - rather, what mattered most was whether or not each party received something valuable in exchange for entering into such an agreement. As such, Justice Field concluded that neither party should be held liable for any damages resulting from this particular transaction and urged his colleagues to reconsider their ruling accordingly.