Lange v. Benedict was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a creditor could bring a suit against a debtor in a state court, even if the debtor had already filed for bankruptcy in a federal court. The Court held that a creditor could not bring a suit against a debtor in a state court, as the debtor's bankruptcy filing in a federal court preempted the state court's jurisdiction. The case arose when the plaintiff, Lange, brought a suit against the defendant, Benedict, in a state court in California. Lange was a creditor of Benedict, who had filed for bankruptcy in a federal court. Lange argued that the state court had jurisdiction to hear the case, as the bankruptcy filing did not affect the state court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the bankruptcy filing in a federal court preempted the state court's jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the federal bankruptcy laws were intended to provide a uniform system of bankruptcy proceedings, and that allowing a state court to hear a case involving a debtor who had already filed for bankruptcy in a federal court would undermine the uniformity of the federal bankruptcy system. The Court's decision in Lange v. Benedict established that a creditor cannot bring a suit against a debtor in a state court, even if the debtor has already filed for bankruptcy in a federal court. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been an important precedent in the area of bankruptcy law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lange v. Benedict, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to unjust results. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is fraud or mistake involved. In this case, he noted that the contract clearly stated that it could only be terminated by mutual consent of both parties and no such agreement had been reached prior to Lange's termination of his services as trustee for Benedict. As such, Field argued that Lange should have been held liable for breach of contract since he unilaterally ended their relationship without cause or justification. Furthermore, Field asserted that if courts were allowed to modify contracts at will then it would create uncertainty in business transactions which could ultimately harm commerce and industry throughout the country.