In Fiedler v. Curtis's Administratrix, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties who resided in different states. The plaintiff argued that he was entitled to damages for the defendant’s failure to fulfill his contractual obligations under a contract made in one state and performed in another. The Court held that although the Constitution grants Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce, it does not grant any authority over contracts made between citizens of different states; thus, such matters are left up to individual state courts. Furthermore, since both parties were domiciled within their respective states at the time of contracting and performance occurred outside those boundaries, there was no federal question involved and therefore no basis for federal court jurisdiction either. Ultimately, this decision affirmed that each state has its own laws governing contracts entered into by its citizens with those from other jurisdictions and must be heard by its own courts accordingly.

In Fiedler v. Curtis's Administratrix, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it violated the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires each state to give full faith and credit to judgments rendered by other states’ courts. Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that since there were no federal laws governing contracts between citizens of different states at the time in question, it should be up to individual states to determine their own rules for such cases. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress wanted all such cases heard in federal courts they would have passed legislation making this so; as they had not done so yet, then it was within a state court’s power to hear them instead. Finally, he noted that allowing one party involved in an interstate dispute access only through federal courts could lead some parties with weaker claims or resources being unable obtain justice due solely based on geography or financial means alone – something which is contrary both common sense and constitutional principles alike