In the case of Christian Breithaupt and Henry Shultz vs. The Bank of the State of Georgia, et al., two individuals sought to recover a debt from a bank that had been chartered by the state legislature. The defendants argued that since they were not citizens or residents of Georgia, they could not be sued in its courts for debts contracted outside the state's borders. However, it was held that as long as an individual voluntarily entered into a contract with another party within Georgia, then he or she could be sued in one of its courts regardless if he or she was not a citizen nor resident there. This decision established precedent for future cases involving contracts made between parties who resided in different states and territories at the time when such agreements were formed.

In the dissenting opinion of Christian Breithaupt and Henry Schultz vs. The Bank of the State of Georgia, Justice Story argued that the Court should not have granted a writ of error in this case because it was an action brought by citizens from one state against another state's bank. He reasoned that such actions were barred by Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution which states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases... between a State and Citizens." This clause is meant to protect states from being sued in federal court without their consent. Furthermore, he noted that if suits like these were allowed then any citizen could sue any other state for damages or debts owed them regardless if they had consented or not. Therefore, Justice Story concluded that granting a writ would be unconstitutional since it would allow citizens to bring suit against non-consenting states in federal court contrary to what was intended by Article III Section 2 Clause 1.