Hitz v. Jenks 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, Hitz and Jenks, who had entered into a contract in the state of Pennsylvania. Hitz then moved to the state of New York and Jenks sued him in a New York court to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the New York court could not enforce the contract because it was made in Pennsylvania and was therefore governed by Pennsylvania law. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in Pennsylvania and was therefore subject to the laws of that state. The Court also held that the New York court could not enforce the contract because it was not made in New York and was therefore not subject to the laws of that state. This case established the principle that a state court cannot enforce a contract that was made in another state.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hitz v. Jenks, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that Congress had not given courts authority over private contracts between individuals, and thus it was inappropriate for them to interfere with such agreements by granting an injunction against their enforcement. Furthermore, he noted that if the court were allowed to grant injunctions in this case then they could do so in any other contract dispute as well - leading to a situation where judges are making decisions about private matters which should be left up to those involved parties alone. Finally, Justice Field expressed concern about how allowing such interference might affect public policy; if people knew that courts could intervene whenever one party felt aggrieved then they may become less likely enter into contractual arrangements at all due fear of potential litigation or intervention from outside sources.