In the case of Canadian Northern Railway Company v. Eggen in 1919, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an accident that occurred in Canada but was litigated in the United States. The plaintiff, Eggen, had been injured while working for Canadian Northern Railway and sought compensation under Minnesota law where he resided. However, the defendant argued that since the incident happened outside of US jurisdiction (in Canada), it should not be subject to Minnesota's laws. The court held that although generally local statutes do not have extraterritorial effect unless such intention is clearly expressed or implied by its terms, there are exceptions when dealing with contractual obligations between parties who reside within said jurisdiction - even if performance occurs elsewhere. Thusly ruling against Canadian Northern Railway Company’s claim of immunity from suit under Minnesota law because their contract with Eggen was made within this state and they were doing business there as well.

In the dissenting opinion for Canadian Northern Railway Company v. Eggen, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Carmack Amendment and its application to international shipments. He argued that Congress did not intend for this amendment to apply beyond domestic borders when it was enacted in 1906. The justice believed that applying U.S law on a shipment originating from Canada would be an overreach of jurisdiction and could potentially disrupt international commerce due to conflicting laws between nations. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were no clear indications within the language or history of legislation suggesting such broad applicability internationally. Therefore, according to him, any losses incurred during transit should be governed by Canadian law as per original contract terms rather than American regulations imposed retrospectively.