In Allen & Co. v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a corporation that was not incorporated in the state. The plaintiff, Allen & Co., was a corporation incorporated in the state of New York. The defendant, Ferguson, was a resident of the state of Pennsylvania. Allen & Co. had sued Ferguson in a New York court for breach of contract. Ferguson then sought an injunction in a Pennsylvania court to prevent Allen & Co. from collecting on the judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania court did not have the authority to issue an injunction against a corporation that was not incorporated in the state. The Court reasoned that the power to issue an injunction was a power of the state, and that the state could not exercise its power beyond its own borders. The Court also noted that the power to issue an injunction was a power of equity, and that the state court could not exercise its power of equity beyond its own borders. The Court concluded that the Pennsylvania court did not have the authority to issue an injunction against Allen & Co., and that the judgment of the New York court should be enforced. This decision established the principle that a state court cannot exercise its power beyond its own borders.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Allen & Co. v. Ferguson, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound reasoning. He argued that there is no legal basis for a court of equity to interfere with an action at law brought by one partner against another, as it would be inconsistent with established principles of partnership law which provide that each partner has equal rights and privileges in all matters relating to the business of the firm. Furthermore, he noted that if courts were allowed to intervene in such cases then they could potentially become involved in every dispute between partners regardless of its nature or complexity - something which should not be encouraged given their limited resources and expertise on matters related to partnerships. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting how allowing this type of interference would lead to further confusion among litigants who may not understand what rights they have when entering into a partnership agreement or why certain actions are being taken against them without any clear explanation from either side as well as potential abuse from those seeking special treatment from courts due solely based on their status within a particular firm rather than merit-based decisions made according to established laws governing partnerships