| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Liter et al. v. Green, the Supreme Court ruled that a state court had no authority to interfere with a contract made between two citizens of different states in another state's jurisdiction. The dispute arose when William Green, an Ohio resident, contracted with John and Thomas Liter for goods from Pennsylvania but failed to pay them after receiving them. The Liters sued him in Pennsylvania courts and obtained judgment against him; however, he then sought relief from an Ohio court on the grounds that his contract was invalid because it violated Ohio law prohibiting contracts between citizens of different states unless they were authorized by special act or resolution passed by its legislature. The Supreme Court held that this action was unconstitutional as it interfered with interstate commerce and deprived individuals of their right to make contracts without legislative interference or approval from other states' legislatures.
In the case of Liter et al. v. Green, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another in which title to land was at issue. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the suit for lack of proper venue. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were no constitutional provisions preventing states from exercising their own judicial powers; secondly, he contended that since Congress had not legislated any specific rules regarding diversity suits between states or otherwise provided guidance on how they should be handled then it would be wrong for the federal courts to interfere with matters traditionally within a state's purview without clear direction from Congress itself. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that if Congress wanted to limit or regulate these types of cases then it should do so explicitly rather than allowing them to remain subject only to individual state laws and regulations as they currently are.