The Home Benefit Association v. Sargent case in 1891 revolved around the issue of whether a contract made by an insurance company, incorporated under Connecticut laws but doing business in New York, could be enforced despite it being contrary to public policy as dictated by New York law. The Supreme Court ruled that while states have the power to control and regulate contracts within their jurisdiction, they cannot interfere with or invalidate contracts made outside their territory unless such contracts are immoral or violate natural justice. In this case, since the insurance contract was legal where it was formed (Connecticut), its enforcement couldn't be denied in another state (New York) simply because it contradicted local regulations on similar transactions conducted within its borders.

In the dissenting opinion for Home Benefit Association v. Sargent, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's ruling that a contract made in one state could be enforced in another despite its violation of local laws. He argued that this decision undermined states' rights to regulate their own insurance industries and protect their citizens from potentially harmful contracts. Furthermore, he contended that it was not unconstitutional for a state to refuse to enforce such contracts as they were against public policy. In his view, each state had the right to determine what kind of business practices were acceptable within its borders and should not be forced by federal law or court decisions to accept those deemed unacceptable or harmful.