Morrison v. Stalnaker 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, Morrison and Stalnaker, in which Morrison agreed to pay Stalnaker a certain amount of money for the sale of a horse. The contract was made in Virginia, but Stalnaker later sued Morrison in a court in West Virginia to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the West Virginia court did not have the authority to enforce the contract because it was made in Virginia. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in Virginia and was therefore subject to the laws of that state. The Court also noted that the contract was not a matter of interstate commerce, and thus the West Virginia court did not have the authority to enforce it. The Court's decision in Morrison v. Stalnaker established the principle that a state court cannot enforce a contract that was made in another state. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is an important part of the law of contracts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Stalnaker, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider relevant facts of the case. He argued that under Virginia law, a deed was not considered valid until it was recorded in court; since this deed had never been recorded, he believed it should be declared invalid. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were no legal requirement for recording deeds in Virginia at the time of this case (1881), common sense dictated that such a practice would have been followed by prudent parties involved with real estate transactions. Therefore, he concluded that since there was no evidence indicating either party knew about or intended to rely on an unrecorded deed as binding proof of ownership rights over property they both claimed title to - then neither party could claim any right or interest therein based upon said document alone. In conclusion, Justice Field stated his belief that equity demanded judgment be entered against both parties and for them to bear their own costs associated with litigation due to their failure to record their respective deeds properly before attempting enforce them against each other's interests