Calder et Wife versus Bull et Wife was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. The dispute arose when Calder, a citizen of Pennsylvania, sued Bull and his wife in South Carolina for debt collection. The Bulls argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over them because they were citizens of North Carolina at the time and had never been served notice in South Carolina. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that although personal service is usually necessary to establish jurisdiction over non-residents, it is not always required if there are other circumstances present which demonstrate knowledge on behalf of those being sued. Furthermore, even though both parties may be citizens from different states or countries at any given point during litigation proceedings does not necessarily mean that one party can escape liability by changing their state or country residence before judgment has been rendered.

In Calder et Wife, versus Bull et Wife, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to issue a divorce decree. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority and thus the divorce decree should be reversed. However, Justice Chase dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit states from granting divorces; secondly, he contended that if Congress had intended to deny states this power then they would have done so in clear language. He further noted that since marriage is an institution of both church and state there must be some means by which either can dissolve it when necessary for public welfare or private happiness. Thus Justice Chase concluded that although Congress has never expressly granted states the right to grant divorces they may do so as long as their laws are consistent with justice and morality.