In Hampton v. M'Connel, the Supreme Court of the United States considered a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiff, William Hampton, had contracted with defendant John M'Connel to transport goods from Philadelphia to New York City for a fee. After delivering the goods in New York City and receiving payment from M’Connell, Hampton sued him for additional compensation due to his failure to fulfill certain conditions outlined in their agreement. The court found that although there was no written evidence of these conditions being part of their contract, they were implied by law as reasonable terms necessary for performance under such circumstances and thus must be enforced against both parties equally. Ultimately it was determined that since all other aspects of the agreement had been fulfilled by both sides without dispute or delay prior to this suit being brought forth, any further claims made by either party would not be valid and therefore dismissed accordingly.

In the case of Hampton v. M'Connel, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted an injunction to prevent a state court from exercising its jurisdiction over a case. He reasoned that since the Constitution does not explicitly grant federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving citizens of different states, it was improper for them to interfere with state court proceedings. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress had intended for such interference to be permissible, they would have included language allowing it in their legislation or provided some other form of authorization. In conclusion, Marshall maintained that granting injunctions against state courts violated both constitutional principles and congressional intent and thus should not be allowed by federal courts.