In Armstrong v. Toler, the Supreme Court considered a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiff in error, Armstrong, had entered into a contract with the defendant in error, Toler, to purchase and deliver certain goods for which he was to receive payment upon delivery. However, when the goods were delivered as agreed upon by both parties but no payment was made by Toler as promised in their agreement. As such Armstrong brought suit against him for damages resulting from his failure to pay according to their contractual agreement. In its decision on this matter the court held that while there may have been some ambiguity regarding what exactly constituted “payment” under their agreement it did not absolve either party from fulfilling any obligations they had undertaken therein; thus making them liable for any losses suffered due to non-performance or breach of said contract regardless of whether or not those terms were explicitly stated within it.

In Armstrong v. Toler, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and reversed the judgment of the lower court. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision, arguing that there was no reason why an action between citizens of different states could not be brought in state courts as long as both parties consented to it being heard there. He argued further that if Congress had intended for federal courts to have exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving diverse citizenship then they would have made explicit provisions for this in their legislation rather than leaving it up to interpretation by the judiciary. As such he concluded that since Congress had not done so then state courts should retain their authority in these matters unless otherwise specified by law or treaty.