In Marine Bank v. Fulton Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a bank could not be sued in another state for debts incurred in its home state. The case arose when Fulton Bank brought suit against Marine Bank in Pennsylvania to recover money due on notes issued by Marine and endorsed by Fulton. In response, Marine argued that it was an Ohio corporation with no presence or authority to do business outside of Ohio and thus could not be sued elsewhere for obligations arising from within its own jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument, holding that states have exclusive jurisdiction over corporations created within their borders and cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over them beyond their boundaries unless they consent or are served process while present there. This decision established an important precedent regarding the limits of a state's power to regulate out-of-state entities doing business within its borders.

In Marine Bank v. Fulton Bank, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could enforce an out-of-state judgment against a nonresident defendant in another state. The majority opinion held that such enforcement was not permissible under the Constitution and laws of the United States. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that states have long recognized judgments from other states as valid and binding on their citizens, even when those judgments were rendered by courts outside of their jurisdiction. He further noted that this practice had been accepted for centuries without any constitutional challenge or objection from Congress or any other branch of government. Therefore, he concluded that it would be wrong to deny recognition to these foreign judgments simply because they did not originate within one's own borders.