In the case of The Bank of Georgia, Appellants v. James Higgibottom, Administrator of William S. Gillett and Others (1835), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a foreign corporation against citizens from another state. At issue was whether or not the Bank of Georgia could sue in a Georgia court for debts owed by citizens from South Carolina who were living in that state at the time they incurred those debts. The Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction because such suits would be contrary to public policy as expressed in Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in several States." Therefore, since these individuals were citizens from another state when they contracted with The Bank Of Georgia, their rights under this clause should be respected and any suit brought against them must take place within their own home state's courts instead.

In the Bank of Georgia v. James Higgibottom, et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state bank could sue in federal court to collect on debts owed by citizens of another state. The majority opinion held that such suits were not allowed under Article III of the Constitution and thus dismissed the case. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling, arguing that Congress had already established rules for when banks may bring suit in federal courts and should be followed here as well. He further argued that allowing states to sue each other's citizens would help ensure uniformity among laws across different jurisdictions and prevent any one state from having an unfair advantage over another due to its own laws or regulations. Ultimately, he concluded that it was within Congress' power to allow such suits in federal court if they so chose and urged them to do so if necessary for interstate harmony between states.