Pratt v. Pratt was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of a husband's right to control his wife's property. The case involved a dispute between a husband and wife over the ownership of a piece of property. The husband, John Pratt, had purchased the property in his own name and had paid for it with his own funds. The wife, Mary Pratt, argued that the property was hers, as it had been purchased with her money. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of John Pratt, finding that a husband had the right to control his wife's property. The Court held that a husband had the right to control his wife's property, even if it had been purchased with her money. The Court reasoned that a husband had the right to control his wife's property because he was the head of the household and was responsible for providing for his family. The Court also held that a husband had the right to dispose of his wife's property as he saw fit, as long as it was done in a reasonable manner. The Court noted that a husband could not use his wife's property for his own benefit, but he could use it to benefit the family. The Court's decision in Pratt v. Pratt established the principle that a husband had the right to control his wife's property, even if it had been purchased with her money. This principle has been applied in many subsequent cases, and it remains an important part of family law today.

In Pratt v. Pratt, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a deed of trust created by William H. Pratt in 1867 to secure payment of a debt he owed his brother, John S. Pratt, could be enforced against land owned by William's son and daughter-in-law after William had died intestate without leaving any estate or assets to satisfy the debt. The majority opinion held that it could not because there was no evidence that the deed of trust had been recorded before William's death and thus did not bind his heirs under state law; however Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, that even if it were true that recording was necessary for such an instrument to bind third parties under state law (which he argued should have been left up to the courts below), there existed sufficient evidence in this case showing actual notice given by John S. Pratt as well as other circumstances which would have put both parties on inquiry notice; secondly, Field argued that regardless of what state law may require regarding recording deeds of trust for them to be binding upon third parties, equity demands recognition here since neither party ever intended nor expected their agreement would fail due its lack of recordation when they entered into it over fifty years ago prior to either party's death and so justice requires enforcement despite technicalities related thereto.