In the case of Hobbs, Assignee v. McLean & Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a debtor, McLean, and his assignee, Hobbs. The contract stated that McLean would pay Hobbs a certain amount of money in exchange for the release of a debt. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Hobbs was entitled to the money he was promised. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was made in good faith and with consideration. The Court also noted that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not involve any illegal activity. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was enforceable because it was made in writing and signed by both parties. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between McLean and Hobbs was valid and enforceable, and that Hobbs was entitled to the money he was promised. The Court's decision established that contracts between two parties are valid and enforceable if they are made in good faith and with consideration, and are not against public policy.

In the case of Hobbs, Assignee v. McLean & Another, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a foreign assignee against two defendants who were citizens of another state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and reversed the judgment of the lower court. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution, Congress has granted federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction in cases where one party is a citizen of another state or country and therefore no other court can exercise such power unless authorized by Congress itself. Furthermore, he noted that there was nothing in either statute or common law which would prevent states from exercising their own judicial powers when dealing with matters involving parties from different states as long as those actions do not conflict with any existing federal laws or regulations governing interstate commerce. Finally, he concluded that since both parties involved in this particular dispute were citizens of different states then it should be up to each respective state's courts to determine if they have proper authority over them rather than relying solely on federal law for guidance here.