Hunter et al. v. Bryant was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1817 that dealt with the issue of whether or not an individual could be held liable for debts incurred prior to their marriage. The plaintiffs, Hunter and his wife, had purchased goods from Bryant before they were married but after they wed, Hunter's wife became solely responsible for paying off the debt according to Virginia law at the time. The Hunters argued that this violated Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution which states "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to...the public Acts...of every other State." In its decision, however, the court found that since there was no existing federal law on this matter it fell within state jurisdiction and therefore Virginia's laws applied regardless of what another state might have done differently in similar circumstances. Ultimately, it ruled against Hunter and his wife as they were required to pay off all outstanding debts incurred prior to their marriage under Virginia law at that time.

In Hunter et al. v. Bryant, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states and an agreement made in another state. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction, but Justice Johnson dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that it was not within the power of any single State to exercise exclusive authority over contracts made between citizens of other States; second, he contended that such matters should be decided by federal courts because they are more likely than individual states to interpret laws uniformly across all jurisdictions. He concluded his dissent with a warning about allowing each State too much control over its own affairs: "It is dangerous," he wrote, "to permit every local tribunal to become an ultimate arbiter in controversies which involve rights derived from foreign sources."