In Eames v. Godfrey, the United States Supreme Court considered a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiff, Eames, had agreed to provide labor and materials for certain improvements on land owned by the defendant, Godfrey. After completing his work and submitting a bill for payment in full, he was only paid part of what he was owed. He then brought suit against Godfrey seeking damages for breach of contract as well as interest on the unpaid balance due him under Massachusetts law at that time. In its decision affirming judgment in favor of Eames, the court held that where there is no express agreement to pay interest on money due from one party to another upon a contract or other obligation arising out of such transaction it may be implied from all circumstances attending it; and if so implied will be enforced according to established principles governing contracts generally.

In Eames v. Godfrey, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has granted federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction in cases where one party is from another state or country. He further argued that this power should be extended to state courts as well since they are part of our judicial system and can provide justice just as effectively as federal courts can. Furthermore, he noted that if only federal courts could hear such cases then litigants would be forced to travel long distances at great expense in order to seek justice which would lead to an unequal application of law across states and territories.