In the case of Dorr v. The Pacific Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in one state could be enforced in another. The plaintiff, Mr. Dorr, had entered into an insurance contract with the defendant company while he was living in New York and then moved to Massachusetts where he attempted to enforce it against them for damages incurred when his ship sank off the coast of France. The court ruled that contracts are binding even if they were formed outside of a party's current jurisdiction as long as both parties agreed upon its terms at the time it was created and there is no law prohibiting such agreements from being enforced across state lines. This decision established important precedent regarding interstate commerce and contractual obligations which still stands today.

In the case of Dorr v. The Pacific Insurance Company, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted an injunction to prevent the defendant from suing on its policy. He reasoned that since there was no dispute as to whether or not the plaintiff had paid his premium and fulfilled all other conditions of his contract with the insurance company, it would be unjust for him to be denied access to justice by being prevented from bringing suit against them. Furthermore, Marshall argued that even if there were some ambiguity regarding whether or not certain terms of their agreement had been met, this did not necessarily mean that they could be barred from seeking legal recourse through litigation. In conclusion, he concluded that granting such an injunction would effectively deny both parties their right to seek justice in court and thus should never have been allowed in this instance.