Livingston v. Dorgenois was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1813. The dispute arose from a contract between Livingston and Dorgenois, which provided that Livingston would pay for goods purchased on credit with cotton at an agreed-upon price. When the cotton market dropped significantly, Livingston refused to pay the full amount of what he owed due to his losses in value of his crop. The court held that while contracts must be performed according to their terms, parties may not take advantage of each other when unforeseen events occur such as changes in market prices or conditions beyond either party's control. Therefore, it was determined that both parties should bear some responsibility for any loss incurred due to these circumstances and thus ordered them both to share equally in paying off the debt owed under their agreement.

In Livingston v. Dorgenois, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Louisiana state court had jurisdiction over a case involving two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction and could proceed with the case. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that it would be unconstitutional for one state's courts to exercise authority over citizens of another state without their consent or agreement; he further contended that such an action would violate Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution which guarantees each citizen "the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus." Additionally, Johnson asserted that allowing one state's courts to hear cases between citizens from other states would create conflicts in laws and judgments among various jurisdictions as well as lead to potential abuses by those who might seek advantage through forum shopping.