Smith & Another v. Woolfolk 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 two parties, Smith & Another and Woolfolk. Smith & Another had entered into a contract with Woolfolk in the state of Georgia, and Woolfolk had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract. Smith & Another then sued Woolfolk in a state court in Mississippi, seeking to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the state court in Mississippi did not have the authority to enforce the contract, as it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in Georgia, and thus the laws of Georgia should be applied to the contract. The Court further held that the state court in Mississippi could not enforce the contract, as it was not made in Mississippi. The Court's decision in Smith & Another v. Woolfolk established that a state court cannot enforce a contract that was made in another state. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has become an important precedent in contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Smith & Another v. Woolfolk, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under Georgia law, a contract for services could not be enforced unless it was in writing and signed by both parties; since there had been no written agreement between the two parties here, he believed that any claim of breach of contract must fail. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if an oral agreement had existed between Smith and Woolfolk as to how much money would be paid for certain services rendered by Smith, such an agreement would still have been unenforceable due to its lack of specificity regarding what those services were or when they were supposed to take place. As such, Justice Field concluded that there was simply insufficient evidence presented at trial which could support a finding of breach on either side - thus making summary judgment inappropriate - and urged reversal of the lower court's ruling on this basis alone.