Scharff & Another v. Levy & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Scharff and Levy, who had entered into a contract in which Levy agreed to pay Scharff a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of goods. Scharff sued Levy for breach of contract, claiming that Levy had failed to pay the agreed-upon amount. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Levy was liable for the amount due. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of consideration, as the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and had exchanged something of value. The Court further held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity, as both parties were competent to enter into the contract. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of mutuality of obligation, as both parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and had exchanged something of value.

In Scharff & Another v. Levy & Another, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment of foreclosure and sale issued by a court in California should be enforced in New York. The majority opinion held that it should not because the California court lacked jurisdiction over the property located in New York. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that under principles of comity between states, judgments rendered by courts of one state are entitled to respect and enforcement when they involve matters properly within their jurisdiction even if those matters also affect persons or interests outside its borders. He argued further that since no fraud had been alleged against the California court's proceedings, there was no reason why its judgment should not be respected and enforced as validly rendered according to law.