Recknagel v. Murphy 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, one of whom was a resident of New York and the other a resident of Pennsylvania. The contract was made in Pennsylvania and provided that the Pennsylvania resident would pay the New York resident a certain sum of money. The Pennsylvania resident failed to make the payment, and the New York resident sued in a New York court. The Pennsylvania resident argued that the New York court had no jurisdiction to enforce the contract because it was made in Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court held that the New York court did have jurisdiction to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable in both states, and that the New York court had jurisdiction to enforce it. The Court noted that the contract was made in Pennsylvania, but that the parties had agreed that it would be enforced in New York. The Court also noted that the contract was valid and enforceable in both states, and that the New York court had jurisdiction to enforce it. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the New York court had jurisdiction to enforce the contract between the two parties. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable in both states, and that the New York court had jurisdiction to enforce it. The Court also noted that the contract was made in Pennsylvania, but that the parties had agreed that it would be enforced in New York.

In the case of Recknagel v. Murphy, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in regards to property located within that state. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did exist and affirmed the decision of the lower court. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no evidence presented which showed any connection between either party and the State; secondly, he asserted that allowing states to exercise jurisdiction over actions involving parties who have no connection with them would be unconstitutional as it violates due process rights under Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution. He concluded his dissent by stating “I am unable to assent” to this decision because it is contrary both “to reason and authority” as well as being inconsistent with constitutional principles.