Herrman v. Arthur's Executors was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in another state. The case involved a contract between a man named Herrman and the executors of the estate of a man named Arthur. Herrman had agreed to purchase a tract of land in the state of New York from Arthur's estate. However, the executors refused to honor the contract and Herrman sued them in a New York court. The Supreme Court held that the New York court had the authority to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires states to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states. The Court also held that the contract was valid under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's decision in Herrman v. Arthur's Executors established that state courts have the authority to enforce contracts that are made in other states. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has been an important precedent in the development of contract law in the United States.

In Herrman v. Arthur's Executors, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one party against the other after the death of one of them. The majority opinion held that it could not, as such contracts were personal in nature and did not survive beyond the life of either party. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on grounds that there was no legal basis for denying enforcement simply because one party had died before performance was complete. He argued that if both parties had fully performed their obligations under the contract prior to death then they should still be bound by its terms even though only one remained alive; otherwise an injustice would result since any money or property already exchanged would remain with just one side while nothing further would be due from them in return.