Word v. Leathers 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 individuals, Word and Leathers, in which Word agreed to pay Leathers a certain amount of money for the sale of a horse. Word failed to make the payment, and Leathers sued in a state court in Tennessee. Word argued that the contract was made in Mississippi and that the Tennessee court had no jurisdiction to enforce it. The Supreme Court held that the Tennessee court had jurisdiction to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable in Mississippi, and that the Tennessee court could enforce it as long as it did not conflict with the laws of Mississippi. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to public policy, and that the parties had the right to choose the forum in which to litigate the dispute. The Court's decision in Word v. Leathers established that a state court can enforce a contract that was made in another state, as long as it does not conflict with the laws of the state in which the contract was made. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Word v. Leathers, arguing that a state court's decision should be respected by the Supreme Court even if it is wrong. He argued that when an issue has been decided by a state court of competent jurisdiction, and no federal question was involved, then its judgment must be accepted as final unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify review. In this case, he found no such exceptional circumstances existed; therefore the Supreme Court had no authority to reverse or modify the decision of the state court. Justice Field further noted that while Congress may have given power to review certain cases from lower courts on writs of error or appeal under certain conditions, none applied here and thus any attempt at reversal would amount to usurpation of judicial power not granted by law.