Kennon v. Gilmer 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 two parties, Kennon and Gilmer, that was made in the state of Georgia. Kennon sued Gilmer in a state court in Mississippi, claiming that Gilmer had breached the contract. Gilmer argued that the contract was not enforceable in Mississippi because it had been made in Georgia. The Supreme Court held that the contract was enforceable in Mississippi. 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 noted that the contract was valid under the law of Mississippi, which allowed contracts made in other states to be enforced in Mississippi. The Court's decision in Kennon v. Gilmer established that contracts made in one state can be enforced in another state, provided that the contract is valid under the law of both states. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of contract law in the United States.

In Kennon v. Gilmer, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an appeal from the decision of an arbitrator appointed by both parties in the dispute. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction, as there was no provision for appeals in the arbitration agreement between them and thus no authority for any court to hear such an appeal. Justice Field dissented on this point, arguing that since both parties had agreed to submit their differences to arbitration and accepted its award, they should be bound by it unless some other remedy is provided by law or contract. He further argued that if either party felt aggrieved by the award then they should seek relief through legal proceedings rather than appealing directly against it; otherwise there would be chaos in judicial proceedings due to conflicting decisions being made on similar cases with different courts having varying opinions about which one has jurisdiction over them.