Moffitt v. Rogers 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, Moffitt and Rogers, in which Moffitt agreed to pay Rogers a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. The contract was made in the state of New York, but Rogers attempted to enforce the contract in the state of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court held that the state of Pennsylvania could not enforce the contract because it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in New York and was therefore subject to the laws of that state. The Court also noted that the contract was not made in Pennsylvania and therefore could not be enforced in that state. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a state court cannot enforce a contract that was made in another state. This principle is still followed today and is an important part of contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Moffitt v. Rogers, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written, regardless of any subsequent changes in circumstances or laws. In this case, he noted that when the contract was made there were no restrictions on slavery; however, by the time it came before the court for consideration such restrictions had been imposed by Congress. Justice Field argued that since these new laws did not exist at the time of contracting they could not be used to invalidate an existing agreement between two parties who had acted in good faith and without knowledge of those future events which would render their agreement illegal under current law. He concluded his dissent with a plea for courts to enforce contracts according to their terms rather than allowing them to become subject to changing legal standards over time.