Wolsey v. Chapman was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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, Wolsey and Chapman, in which Wolsey agreed to pay Chapman a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. The contract was made in the state of New York, but Chapman attempted to enforce the contract in the state of Ohio. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable in Ohio. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires states to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states. The Court also held that the contract was valid under the law of Ohio, which recognized contracts made in other states. The Court's decision in Wolsey v. Chapman established that a contract made in one state can be enforced in another state, provided that the contract is valid under the law of the state in which it is being enforced. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in contract law.

In the case of Wolsey v. Chapman, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider certain facts and evidence presented by both parties. He stated that there was sufficient proof to show that the defendant had been guilty of fraud in obtaining title to land from plaintiff's ancestor, and thus should not have been granted judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, Justice Field believed it was improper for the court to ignore testimony given by witnesses who were present at the time when title passed from plaintiff's ancestor to defendant; this testimony could have provided additional insight into whether or not fraud occurred during this transaction. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that since there were unresolved questions regarding fraudulent activity on behalf of defendant, summary judgment should not have been granted in his favor without further consideration being given towards all relevant evidence presented by both parties.