In the case of Drury v. Foster, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a contract dispute between two citizens of different states. The plaintiff, Drury, argued that since he and his defendant were both citizens of different states at the time they entered into their agreement, it should be considered an interstate contract and therefore subject to federal jurisdiction. The defendant countered by arguing that since neither party resided in any other state than their own when they made the agreement, it should remain under state jurisdiction. After considering both arguments carefully, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Drury's position and held that such contracts are indeed subject to federal law due to its interstate nature regardless if either party resides outside their home state or not at the time they enter into said agreement.

In Drury v. Foster, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which both parties were citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it would be contrary to the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires each state to give full faith and credit to judicial proceedings of other states. Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that there is no constitutional prohibition against one state exercising jurisdiction over persons who are citizens of other states; second, he argued that if such jurisdictional power does exist under the Constitution then it should be exercised in order for justice between all parties involved in a dispute regardless of their citizenship status or residence. He concluded his dissent by stating "it seems unjust and oppressive" for one party to escape liability simply because they reside outside of the forum where suit was brought.