Rothwell vs. Dewees was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1862. The dispute centered around an agreement between two parties, Rothwell and Dewees, concerning the sale of land located in Missouri. Rothwell had agreed to purchase certain tracts of land from Dewees for $6,000 but failed to make payment on time as stipulated in their contract. As a result, Dewees sought legal action against him for breach of contract and won his case at trial court level where he was awarded damages amounting to $4,500 plus interest and costs incurred during litigation proceedings. However upon appeal before the US Supreme Court it was determined that since there were no specific terms or conditions stated regarding when payments should be made under the original agreement between both parties then any delay could not be considered as being material enough to constitute a breach of contract thus overturning the decision reached at lower court levels which had found otherwise in favor of Dewee's claim against Rothwell .

In Rothwell v. Dewees, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving parties from different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction in this instance because it violated the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause which requires each state to give full faith and credit to judicial proceedings of other states. Justice Field dissented, arguing that there was no violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause since all parties were present in one forum at one time for trial purposes. He argued further that if such cases were allowed then it would be an unnecessary burden on litigants who may have difficulty traveling between two separate forums for their trials or hearings. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such cases would also lead to conflicting judgments as well as confusion regarding which judgment should be enforced by another state under its own laws or those of another state where some party resides or has property located therein. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing these types of cases before a single tribunal could provide more efficient resolution than having multiple tribunals involved with potentially conflicting decisions being rendered by them respectively