In Hurley v. Street, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to enforce a contract that was made in another state. The case involved a contract between two parties, Hurley and Street, in which Street agreed to pay Hurley a certain sum of money for the sale of a horse. Hurley sued Street in a state court in New York, and Street argued that the contract was made in Pennsylvania and that the New York court had no jurisdiction to enforce it. The Supreme Court held that the New York court had the authority to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable in the state where it was made, and that the New York court had the power to enforce it. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to the public policy of either state, and that the New York court had the power to enforce contracts made in other states. The Court's decision in Hurley v. Street established that state courts have the authority to enforce contracts made in other states, provided that the contract is valid and enforceable in the state where it was made and that it is not contrary to the public policy of either state. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in contract law.

In Hurley v. Street, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been made in good faith and without fraud or duress could be voided by one of the parties due to their religious beliefs. The majority opinion held that such contracts were binding and enforceable under law, while Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that allowing individuals to void contracts based on their religious convictions would lead to an untenable situation where any party could avoid fulfilling contractual obligations simply by claiming it violated their conscience or religion. Furthermore, he noted that if such a practice were allowed then no person’s rights would ever be secure since they could always be avoided through claims of conscientious objection or religious belief. As such, he concluded that upholding the contract in question was necessary for protecting both public order and private rights alike.