Jenkins v. International Bank was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a foreign corporation could be sued in a state court. The plaintiff, Jenkins, had sued the defendant, International Bank, in a state court for breach of contract. The defendant argued that it was a foreign corporation and, as such, could not be sued in a state court. The Supreme Court held that a foreign corporation could be sued in a state court. The Court reasoned that the defendant had consented to the jurisdiction of the state court by entering into a contract with the plaintiff. The Court noted that the defendant had not objected to the jurisdiction of the state court when the contract was entered into, and that the defendant had accepted the benefits of the contract. Therefore, the Court held that the defendant had consented to the jurisdiction of the state court and could be sued in that court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that a foreign corporation could be sued in a state court if it had consented to the jurisdiction of the court by entering into a contract with the plaintiff. The Court reasoned that the defendant had accepted the benefits of the contract and had not objected to the jurisdiction of the state court when the contract was entered into.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jenkins v. International Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was based on a misapplication of law and an incorrect interpretation of facts. He argued that the plaintiff had no legal right to recover from the defendant bank because he did not have any contract with them or provide consideration for their services. Furthermore, Justice Field believed that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of negligence against the bank since they were unaware of any fraud being committed by its customer at the time it accepted his check as payment for goods purchased from him. Additionally, Justice Field noted that even if there had been some form of negligence on behalf of the bank, it would be difficult to prove damages given how long ago this transaction occurred and how much value could have changed over time due to inflation or other economic factors. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that while sympathy may exist for those who suffer losses due to fraudulent acts such as this one, courts must adhere strictly to established laws when deciding cases like these so justice can be served fairly and equitably across all parties involved in similar disputes.