Anson, Bangs & Co. v. The Blue Ridge Railroad Company is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state-chartered railroad company was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In this case, Anson, Bangs & Co., an interstate freight forwarding business based in New York City, sued The Blue Ridge Railroad Company for refusing to transport its goods from Virginia into South Carolina without charging exorbitant rates and fees. The Supreme Court ruled that because interstate commerce was involved (the transportation of goods across state lines), it fell within Congress’ power to regulate such activities under Article I Section 8 of the U.S Constitution - commonly known as “The Commerce Clause” - and therefore could not be interfered with by states or their agents like railroads companies chartered by them . This ruling established an important precedent for future cases involving federal preemption over matters related to interstate commerce; namely that any interference with such activity would be unconstitutional unless authorized by Congress itself through legislation passed pursuant to its powers granted via Article I Section 8 clause 3 (Commerce Clause).

In Anson, Bangs & Co. v. The Blue Ridge Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against a corporation chartered in another state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case on those grounds. However, Justice Curtis dissented from this decision and argued that the Constitution does not prohibit states from exercising jurisdiction over corporations created under their laws when they are sued by citizens of other states or foreign countries in matters arising out of contracts made within their borders. He further noted that if Congress has not prohibited such suits then there is no reason why individual states should be prevented from doing so as long as they do not interfere with interstate commerce or violate any constitutional provisions regarding due process rights for defendants who may reside outside of its boundaries.