Robbins v. Rollins's Executor was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in another state. The case involved a contract between a man named Robbins and a man named Rollins. Robbins had agreed to pay Rollins a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain piece of property. Rollins died before the contract was fulfilled, and his executor, Rollins's Executor, sued Robbins in a state court in Massachusetts. 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 also held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was not within its jurisdiction. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a state court cannot enforce a contract that was made in another state. This principle is still followed today and is an important part of contract law.

In Robbins v. Rollins's Executor, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one party against the other. The majority opinion held that it could not, as there were no mutual obligations remaining in effect and thus no consideration for either side to enforce the agreement. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that while both sides may have received some benefit from their partial performance of the contract, they still had an obligation to complete what they agreed upon and should therefore be able to enforce its terms against each other if necessary. Furthermore, he noted that even though only one party may have benefited more than another due to their respective performances under the agreement, this did not necessarily mean that enforcement of its terms would be inequitable or unjustified; rather it simply meant that any damages awarded should reflect such disparities in benefit accordingly. Ultimately then Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing for greater flexibility when considering contracts with incomplete performance so as not to unduly restrict individuals’ ability to seek legal redress for breaches thereof