In New Jersey Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Baker, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a life insurance policy was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, New Jersey Mutual Life Insurance Company, had issued a policy to the defendant, Baker, in 1867. The policy provided that if Baker died within two years of the policy's issuance, the company would pay the full amount of the policy to Baker's estate. However, Baker died within the two-year period, and the company refused to pay the full amount of the policy. The Supreme Court held that the policy was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the policy was clear and unambiguous, and that the company had accepted the policy and had not raised any objections to it. The Court also noted that the company had accepted premiums from Baker and had not raised any objections to the policy until after Baker's death. The Court concluded that the policy was valid and enforceable, and that the company was obligated to pay the full amount of the policy to Baker's estate.

In the case of New Jersey Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Baker, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a life insurance policy issued by an out-of-state company could be enforced in another state. The majority opinion held that such policies were not enforceable because they violated public policy and thus did not have legal effect outside of their home state. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that there was no evidence that enforcing these policies would violate any public policy; second, he argued that if states had the power to invalidate contracts made in other states it would lead to chaos and confusion as each state could set its own rules for contract enforcement without regard for those of other states. He concluded by stating his belief that Congress should pass legislation regulating interstate commerce so as to prevent such conflicts between different jurisdictions from arising in the future.