The U.S. Supreme Court case Mexican Central Railway Company v. Pinkney in 1892 revolved around a dispute over the jurisdiction of American courts in matters involving foreign corporations. The plaintiff, Pinkney, was an American citizen who had purchased bonds from the defendant, Mexican Central Railway Company - a corporation established under the laws of Mexico but with offices and properties in Texas as well. When the company defaulted on its bond payments, Pinkney sued for recovery not only in Mexico but also within U.S., arguing that since it conducted business and owned property there, it should be subject to local jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that while foreign corporations may be sued where they conduct business or own property if related to those operations; this did not apply here because his claim originated from transactions made entirely outside of United States' territory (in Mexico). Therefore, he could not sue them within U.S.'s borders for actions taken abroad unless explicitly agreed upon by both parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Mexican Central Railway Company v. Pinkney, the justice argued that a contract made in Mexico by an American citizen should be governed by Mexican law rather than U.S. law. The plaintiff had entered into a contract with the railway company to construct part of its line and was paid partly in bonds issued under Mexican laws; however, he claimed these were not delivered as promised. The majority ruled that this case fell under Massachusetts' jurisdiction where the defendant's principal office was located and applied U.S law to interpret contractual obligations which led to ruling against Pinkney’s claim on grounds of laches (unreasonable delay). However, according to dissenting view, since all transactions took place in Mexico involving a project based there too, it would have been more appropriate if Mexican legal principles were used instead of imposing foreign rules onto them.