Laidly v. Huntington 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 a contract between two parties, Laidly and Huntington, in which Laidly agreed to pay Huntington a certain amount of money for a piece of property. Huntington sued Laidly in a state court in New York for breach of contract. Laidly 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 jurisdiction 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 parties had the right to choose the forum in which to litigate the dispute. The Court's decision in Laidly v. Huntington established that a state court can enforce a contract that was made in another state, provided that the contract is valid and enforceable in the state where it was made and that it does not violate the public policy of either state. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Laidly v. Huntington, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider relevant facts of the case. He argued that under California law, a contract for goods was valid if it was made with an agent who had authority to bind his principal by such contracts. The defendant's agent had been given express authority to make purchases on behalf of his employer, which meant that any contracts he entered into were binding on both parties regardless of whether or not they were approved by his employer afterwards. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there was no express agreement between them regarding payment terms, this did not invalidate their contract; rather it simply left open how much time would be allowed for payment before interest began accruing on unpaid balances. As such, he concluded that plaintiff should have been awarded damages as per their original agreement and urged reversal of the lower court’s decision denying him relief