De Sobry v. Nicholson was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an individual’s right to contract is protected by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and cannot be taken away without due process of law. The case arose when William De Sobry sued John Nicholson for breach of contract after he failed to pay for goods purchased from De Sobry's store in Louisiana during the Civil War period. The lower courts found in favor of Nicholson, ruling that his obligation had been discharged under a state statute passed during wartime which allowed debtors to discharge their obligations if they could not make payment within three months after demand was made upon them by creditors or other persons entitled thereto; however, this decision was overturned on appeal at the Supreme Court level because it violated De Sobry's rights under both federal and state constitutions as well as common law principles protecting contracts from impairment or destruction without due process of law. Ultimately, this landmark decision established an important precedent regarding individuals' contractual rights being protected against arbitrary interference by government action or legislation

In De Sobry v. Nicholson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the defendant resided in yet another state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. In his dissent, Justice Field argued that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has granted federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases between citizens of different states regardless of where they reside or are domiciled at any given time. He further argued that this power should be exercised liberally so as to ensure justice for all parties involved and prevent forum shopping among litigants who may seek out more favorable venues for their disputes. Furthermore, he noted that allowing states to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts would lead to confusion and uncertainty about which court had authority over certain matters involving interstate disputes