Mcandrews v. Thatcher was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1865. The dispute arose when Mcandrews, an attorney from New York, sued Thatcher for failing to pay him $1,000 for legal services he had provided in 1858 and 1860. In his complaint, Mcandrews argued that the statute of limitations did not apply because he had been unable to collect payment due to circumstances beyond his control - namely that Thatcher had moved out of state during this time period and could not be located or served with process papers until 1863. The Supreme Court agreed with Mcandrews' argument and held that since it was impossible for him to have collected on the debt within the statutory limitation period due to circumstances outside of his control, then he should still be able to recover damages from Thatcher despite having waited more than five years after providing services before filing suit against her. This ruling established a precedent which has been used ever since as justification for allowing plaintiffs who are unable through no fault of their own bring suit even if they do so after expiration of applicable statutes of limitation periods

In McAndrews v. Thatcher, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the defendant resided in yet another state. The majority opinion held that the plaintiff could not bring suit against the defendant in his home state because it would be unconstitutional for one state to exercise jurisdiction over citizens of other states without their consent. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that there is no constitutional prohibition on such suits being brought before courts within any particular State so long as those courts have proper jurisdiction over them. He further noted that if Congress has granted authority to a State's courts, then they should be allowed to exercise it regardless of where either party resides or what citizenship they possess.