Huntley v. Huntley & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a husband and wife could be joined as defendants in a single action. The case was brought by the plaintiff, Huntley, who was seeking to recover damages from his wife and her alleged paramour. The Supreme Court held that a husband and wife could not be joined as defendants in a single action, as it would be contrary to public policy. The Court reasoned that it would be improper to allow a husband and wife to be joined as defendants in a single action, as it would be contrary to the public policy of protecting the sanctity of marriage. Furthermore, the Court held that the plaintiff could not recover damages from the wife's alleged paramour, as the husband and wife were not joined as defendants in the same action. The Court's decision in Huntley v. Huntley & Another established the principle that a husband and wife cannot be joined as defendants in a single action. This principle has been applied in subsequent cases, and has been used to protect the sanctity of marriage and to ensure that the rights of both parties are respected.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Huntley v. Huntley & Another, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of California law. He argued that under California law, a married woman could not be held liable for her husband's debts unless she had expressly agreed to do so or had received some benefit from them. In this case, there was no evidence of either situation and thus Mrs. Huntley should not have been held responsible for her husband's debt obligations as it would violate state laws protecting married women from such liability without their consent or knowledge of any benefits they may receive from said debt obligations. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that if the Court were to allow Mrs. Huntley to be held liable despite these protections provided by state law then it would set a dangerous precedent which could lead to similar violations in other states with similar laws protecting married women against such liabilities without their express agreement or knowledge of receiving any benefit from said debts owed by their husbands