The Grace Girdler was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract made in another state. The case involved a contract between a New York resident, Grace Girdler, and a Massachusetts resident, William H. Smith. Girdler had agreed to pay Smith a certain sum of money for the purchase of a horse. Smith sued Girdler in a Massachusetts court for the payment of the money, but Girdler argued that the contract was made in New York and that the Massachusetts court had no jurisdiction to enforce it. The Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts court did have jurisdiction to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in New York, but the performance of the contract was to take place in Massachusetts. Therefore, the Court held that the Massachusetts court had jurisdiction to enforce the contract. The Court also held that the contract was valid and enforceable in both states. The Grace Girdler case established the principle that a state court can enforce a contract made in another state, provided that the performance of the contract is to take place in the state where the court is located. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and it is an important part of contract law.

In the case of The Grace Girdler, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and would lead to unjust results. He noted that Congress had not intended for vessels to be subject to seizure when they were in port or within three miles from shore, as this would interfere with commerce and navigation. Furthermore, he argued that it was wrong for a vessel owner who had done nothing wrong to suffer such severe consequences due to another person's actions. In his view, it should have been up to Congress alone—not courts—to decide whether vessels could be seized under these circumstances. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by asserting that if Congress wanted ships in port or near shorelines subject to seizure then they should pass laws explicitly stating so; otherwise any attempt at doing so through court rulings would be unconstitutional and unfair.