In Risher v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that the parties had entered into it freely and voluntarily. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that the husband had the ability to pay the wife the money he had promised. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the wife was entitled to the money she was promised. The Court ordered the husband to pay the wife the money he had promised her.

In Risher v. Smith, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant in which the cause of action arose outside of the state. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did not exist and dismissed the case. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that states should be allowed to exercise their power to grant jurisdiction when it is reasonable for them to do so and noted that there were no constitutional limitations on this power. He further argued that allowing states greater control over their own courts would lead to more efficient administration of justice as well as increased respect for those courts among citizens within and without its borders. Ultimately, he concluded that since there was nothing unconstitutional about granting such jurisdictional authority in this particular case, it should have been upheld by the Court instead of being dismissed outright.