Tilton et al. v. Cofield et al. 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 a contract between two parties, Tilton and Cofield, in which Tilton agreed to pay Cofield a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. Cofield then sued Tilton in a state court in Mississippi, claiming that Tilton had failed to pay the agreed-upon amount. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to enforce the contract because it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in New York and was therefore governed by the laws of that state. The Court further held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was not within its jurisdiction. The Court's decision was significant because it established the principle that a state court cannot enforce a contract that was made in another state. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and it is an important part of the law of contracts.

In the case of Tilton et al. v. Cofield et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed executed by a husband and wife constituted an absolute conveyance or if it should be considered as a mortgage, thus requiring repayment of debt to the grantee. The majority opinion held that because there were no words in the deed indicating any intention other than an outright sale, it must be taken at face value and not interpreted as anything else. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that although there were no explicit terms indicating otherwise in the deed itself, evidence outside of its text showed that both parties had intended for it to serve only as security for payment of debt owed by one party to another rather than constituting an actual transfer of title between them. He argued further that such extrinsic evidence should have been allowed into consideration when interpreting what was meant by their agreement so as to avoid injustice being done against either side due to misinterpretation or misunderstanding on either part about what they had agreed upon originally