In Matthews v. McStea, the United States Supreme Court 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, McStea and Matthews, in which McStea agreed to pay Matthews a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain amount of goods. The contract was made in the state of New York, but McStea refused to pay Matthews when the goods were delivered in the state of Pennsylvania. Matthews then sued McStea in a Pennsylvania court, seeking to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania court had the authority to enforce the contract, even though it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable under the laws of New York, and that the Pennsylvania court had the power to enforce it. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to the public policy of Pennsylvania, and that the parties had a legitimate expectation that the contract would be enforced. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania court had the authority to enforce the contract between McStea and Matthews, even though it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable under the laws of New York, and that the Pennsylvania court had the power to enforce it. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to the public policy of Pennsylvania, and that the parties had a legitimate expectation that the contract would be enforced.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Matthews v. McStea, arguing that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms and not subject to judicial interpretation or alteration. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established principles of law, as it allowed for courts to modify contracts based on their own views of fairness rather than enforcing them as written. Furthermore, he noted that this would lead to uncertainty in contractual relationships and could potentially undermine public confidence in the legal system if contracts were routinely modified by judges instead of being upheld according to their original language. Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that any changes made should come from legislative action rather than through court decisions which alter existing agreements without due consideration for all involved parties.