John Hagan, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Charles F. Lucas for the recovery of damages due to an alleged breach of contract. The dispute arose from a contract between the two parties that was made on June 1st 1834 and involved the sale of certain goods by Lucas to Hagan. According to this agreement, Hagan would pay $1,000 for these goods with interest at 6 percent per annum until paid off in full. However, when it came time for payment on May 15th 1835 only $500 had been paid leaving another $500 still owing plus interest accrued since then making up a total sum owed of approximately $550 dollars. As such, John Hagan sought relief through legal action claiming that he had fulfilled his part of the bargain but Charles F Lucas failed to do so leading him into financial hardship as well as mental anguish and distress caused by having his credit impaired among other things resulting from this breach in contract . Ultimately after much deliberation over both sides' arguments ,the court found no evidence supporting any claims made by either party thus ruling against them both and dismissing their respective cases without prejudice or costs awarded .

In the case of John Hagan v. Charles F. Lucas, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a dispute between two citizens from different states when both parties agreed that any disputes would be settled in another state's courts. The majority opinion held that since there was no contract between the parties and they did not agree on which court should have jurisdiction, then it must be assumed that each party intended for their own home state court to have jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of their agreement. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision and argued that if both parties had agreed to submit themselves to another state's laws or courts for resolution of any disputes arising out of their agreement, then those terms should be enforced by the federal government as part of its duty under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 (the Supremacy Clause)of the United States Constitution. He further argued that even though there may not have been an explicit contract between them regarding which court would hear such cases, it is reasonable to assume they meant for one particular forum - either theirs or some other mutually-agreed upon third-party forum -to handle all future matters related to their transaction given how common such agreements were at the time and how much easier it made resolving conflicts without resorting back into litigation in multiple forums with potentially conflicting outcomes