In Cameron v. M'Roberts, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which both parties were citizens of different states. The plaintiff, William Cameron, sued John M'Roberts for breach of contract and sought damages from him in Kentucky Circuit Court. The defendant argued that he could not be sued in Kentucky because he was a resident and citizen of Virginia at the time when the cause arose; thus, according to him, it would have been necessary for Mr. Cameron to bring his suit before either a federal or Virginia court instead. In its ruling on this case, however, the Supreme Court held that since there is no provision made under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 (the diversity clause) granting exclusive jurisdiction over such cases to federal courts alone - rather than also allowing them concurrent jurisdiction with state courts - then any party may sue another party who resides in another state within their own home-state's court system without having first obtained permission from Congress or any other body outside their own respective jurisdictions . As such , they concluded that Mr. M’ Roberts must answer Mr .Cameron’s complaint as filed before Kentucky Circuit Court despite being domiciled elsewhere at the time when it originated .

In Cameron v. M'Roberts, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a deed executed in Virginia by an individual who had since moved to Kentucky could be enforced in the state of Kentucky. The majority opinion held that it could not, as there were no laws or statutes authorizing such enforcement and thus it would violate public policy. However, Justice Story dissented from this ruling on the grounds that he believed that enforcing contracts across state lines should be allowed if they are valid under both states’ laws and do not conflict with any other legal principles. He argued further that allowing such enforcement would promote commerce between states and benefit society as a whole by encouraging individuals to enter into binding agreements without fear of them being unenforceable due to their location when entered into. In conclusion, Justice Story's dissent argued for greater recognition of interstate contract enforceability than what was ultimately decided upon by the court majority opinion in this case.