Landsdale v. Smith 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, Landsdale and Smith, in which Landsdale agreed to pay Smith a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. Smith sued Landsdale in a state court in New York for breach of contract, and Landsdale argued that the contract was invalid because it was made in another state. The Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract, as long as the contract was valid under the laws of the state in which it was made. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to enforce contracts made in other states, as long as the contract was valid under the laws of the state in which it was made. This decision established the principle that state courts have the authority to enforce contracts made in other states, as long as the contract is valid under the laws of the state in which it was made.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Landsdale v. Smith, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and logic. He argued that while a contract may be rescinded if it is found to have been made under duress or fraud, such rescission should not be allowed when there has been no proof of either condition existing at the time of contracting. Furthermore, he noted that even if one party had acted improperly during negotiations leading up to signing a contract, this did not necessarily mean that any rights acquired by virtue of said contract could then be taken away without due process being followed. In his view, allowing for such an action would undermine public confidence in contracts and lead to uncertainty regarding their enforceability going forward; thus making them less likely to enter into agreements with each other as they would fear having their rights violated down the line. Ultimately Justice Field concluded by stating that "the law should never permit parties who have voluntarily entered into engagements with each other...to repudiate them on account of matters which occurred prior thereto."