The Merritt was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1873. The case involved a dispute between the Merritt family and the United States government over the ownership of a parcel of land in the state of California. The Merritts claimed that they had acquired the land through a Spanish land grant in 1845, while the government argued that the land had been acquired by the United States through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Merritts, ruling that the land grant was valid and that the Merritts had a valid claim to the land. The Court held that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo did not extinguish the Merritts' rights to the land, as the treaty only applied to lands that were owned by Mexico at the time of the treaty. The Court also held that the Merritts had acquired the land in good faith and had taken all necessary steps to perfect their title. The Merritt case is significant because it established the principle that land grants made by foreign governments prior to the acquisition of the land by the United States are valid and enforceable. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still used today.

In The Merritt, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties from different states. In this particular case, the defendant argued that since he was not present in the state where suit was brought against him and did not have any property or assets there, then it would be unconstitutional for the court to exercise jurisdiction over him. However, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that while it is true that due process requires personal service on defendants who are out-of-state residents before they can be subjected to suit in another state's courts; however, if those same individuals voluntarily appear in such courts either by themselves or through their attorneys without objecting to lack of personal service then they should be deemed as having waived their right under due process and thus subject themselves to being sued there. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since no objection had been made by the defendant regarding lack of proper notice prior to his appearance at trial nor during proceedings thereafter he should therefore be held liable for breaching his contractual obligations with plaintiff according to law.