Pearson v. Yewdall 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, Pearson and Yewdall, in which Pearson agreed to pay Yewdall a certain sum of money in exchange for Yewdall's services. Yewdall then sued Pearson in a state court in Pennsylvania, seeking to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to enforce the contract because it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in a different state and was therefore subject to the laws of that state. The Court further held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was not within its jurisdiction. The Court's decision in Pearson v. Yewdall established the principle that a state court cannot enforce a contract that was made in another state. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Pearson v. Yewdall, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or statute. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms and conditions, regardless of whether it is written or verbal. In this case, he noted that there had been an oral agreement between the parties which provided for specific performance of certain obligations on both sides; however, the court refused to enforce those obligations because they were not included in a written document signed by both parties. Justice Field argued that such refusal would lead to uncertainty and injustice as contracts could easily be avoided simply by failing to reduce them into writing when required under state law. Furthermore, he stated that if one party failed to perform their part of an oral agreement then they should still be held liable even without a written document being present since it was clear from evidence presented at trial what each party had agreed upon verbally.