In Little et al. v. Barreme et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties, made in France and governed by French law, could be enforced in an American court. The plaintiffs argued that because they had performed their part of the agreement according to its terms, they were entitled to damages for breach of contract from the defendants who had failed to fulfill their obligations under it. The defendants countered that since this was a foreign contract not subject to American laws or jurisdiction, it should not be enforceable in an American court. After considering both sides' arguments carefully, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that although contracts made abroad are generally unenforceable within U.S courts due to lack of jurisdiction over them, this particular case fell into an exception as there were sufficient contacts with America which allowed enforcement here despite being formed overseas and governed by foreign law; thus allowing recovery on behalf of the plaintiffs for breach of contract against those who failed perform their duties under it accordingly

In Little et al. v. Barreme et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving citizens of different states, and if so, what law should be applied in such cases. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction over this matter and that it should apply its own laws when deciding the dispute between parties from different states. Justice Samuel Chase dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress alone has authority to determine which laws are applicable in disputes between citizens of different states; secondly, he maintained that even if Congress were not involved in making such determinations, then federal common law would still govern these matters instead of state law as proposed by the majority opinion. In conclusion, Justice Chase believed either way - through congressional action or application of federal common law - any decision made by a state court regarding interstate disputes must be subject to review by higher courts for consistency with national standards established under federal authority rather than relying solely on local statutes enacted at the discretion of each individual State legislature.