In Great Falls Manufacturing Company v. The Attorney General, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state could impose a tax on a foreign corporation that was doing business within its borders. The Great Falls Manufacturing Company was a foreign corporation that had been doing business in the state of Maine for several years. The state of Maine had imposed a tax on the company, which the company argued was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state of Maine had the right to impose a tax on the company, as long as the tax was not discriminatory or excessive. The Court noted that the company was doing business in the state and was thus subject to the state's laws. The Court also noted that the tax was not excessive or discriminatory, and thus was constitutional. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Maine had the right to impose a tax on the Great Falls Manufacturing Company, as long as the tax was not excessive or discriminatory. The Court noted that the company was doing business in the state and was thus subject to the state's laws.

In the case of Great Falls Manufacturing Company v. The Attorney General, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a corporation for violating its charter and laws of incorporation. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority, as corporations are creatures of federal law and thus only Congress has power over them. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that states should be able to regulate their own corporate entities in order to protect their citizens from harm caused by those corporations' actions. He argued that while Congress may have exclusive control over certain aspects of corporate governance, other matters should remain within state jurisdiction so long as they do not conflict with any federal statutes or regulations. Furthermore, he argued that allowing states to exercise some degree of control would help ensure compliance with both state and federal laws since companies could no longer hide behind preemption doctrines when accused of wrongdoing in either arena.