In Thomas J. Coffee v. The Planters Bank of Tennessee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against a corporation created under the laws of that other state. At issue in this case was whether or not the defendant bank could be sued in Tennessee for debts incurred while it operated as an out-of-state entity and if so, what remedies were available to plaintiff Coffee who resided outside of Tennessee? The Court held that although corporations are generally subject to suit only within their own states, they may be sued elsewhere when necessary for purposes such as enforcing contracts made with citizens from other states. In this instance, since Coffee had contracted with the bank while living in Mississippi and then moved to Alabama before filing his lawsuit against them in Tennessee, he was allowed to bring his claim there because it would have been impossible for him otherwise due to lack of jurisdiction where he now lived. As such, the Supreme Court affirmed lower court's decision allowing plaintiff's suit against defendant bank despite its being incorporated outside of Tennessee

Justice Catron delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the court should not have reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, as it was based on a valid interpretation of state law and did not conflict with any federal laws or constitutional provisions. He further noted that there were no facts presented to show that Coffee had been denied due process under either state or federal law, and thus he believed that reversing the lower court's ruling would be an unwarranted interference by a higher authority into matters which are best left to local courts. In conclusion, Justice Catron felt strongly that since there was no evidence showing any violation of rights protected by either state or federal law, then overturning the decision made by Tennessee's highest court would be inappropriate and unjustified.