Robards v. Lamb was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to grant a divorce to a husband and wife who had been married in another state. The case was brought by the husband, William Robards, who had been married to his wife, Mary Lamb, in the state of New York. The couple had since moved to the state of Ohio, where Robards had filed for divorce. The Ohio court granted the divorce, but Lamb appealed the decision, arguing that the Ohio court did not have the authority to grant a divorce to a couple married in another state. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Robards, finding that the Ohio court did have the authority to grant the divorce. The Court reasoned that the Ohio court had jurisdiction over the parties, and that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of its citizens. The Court also noted that the Ohio court had acted in accordance with the laws of the state, and that the divorce was valid under Ohio law. The Court concluded that the Ohio court had the authority to grant the divorce, and that the decision should be upheld.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Robards v. Lamb, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that a husband had an absolute right to his wife's services, and any attempt by her to leave him without his permission constituted desertion. The Court should not have allowed Mrs. Robards' plea of duress as a defense against her husband's suit for damages due to her leaving him without his consent; instead, it should have held that she was liable for all of the damages caused by her actions because she voluntarily chose them over remaining with Mr. Robards despite being aware of their consequences. Justice Field further noted that if Mrs. Robards were allowed this defense then no married woman would be safe from prosecution or punishment when they left their husbands without permission since they could always plead duress as a defense against any action taken against them by their husbands in response to such behavior - even though there may be no evidence whatsoever supporting such claims of duress beyond mere assertion on behalf of the wife involved in question.. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing this type of claim would open up too many avenues for wives who wished to escape marriage obligations while still avoiding responsibility for doing so - something which he felt ran counter both legal precedent and basic fairness principles alike