In the 1946 case of Mexican Light & Power Co., Ltd. v. Texas Mexican Railway Co., the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over jurisdiction and contract interpretation between two companies operating across international borders. The plaintiff, Mexican Light & Power Company (MLP), was a Canadian corporation that operated in Mexico but had its principal office in New York City. MLP contracted with Texas Mexican Railway Company to transport coal from Texas to Mexico for use at MLP's power plants there. The issue arose when MLP sued for breach of contract after the railway company failed to deliver coal as agreed upon due to labor strikes affecting operations. The railway company argued that it should not be held liable because these were unforeseen circumstances beyond their control, invoking force majeure clauses within their agreement. However, the main legal question revolved around whether U.S courts had jurisdiction over this matter since both parties were foreign corporations and most activities related to the contract took place outside of U.S territory. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of MLP stating that even though they are foreign entities operating mostly abroad; they still have substantial contacts within United States which gives American courts authority over such disputes under International Shoe doctrine.

In the dissenting opinion for Mexican Light & Power Co., Ltd. v. Texas Mexican Railway Co., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of jurisdictional issues related to foreign corporations operating in multiple states and countries. He argued that a corporation should not be considered present within a state simply because it conducts business there, especially when its primary operations are based elsewhere (in this case, Canada). Furthermore, he contended that the court had overstepped its bounds by ruling on an issue of international law without sufficient evidence or arguments presented by either side regarding this matter. This decision could potentially infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations and create unnecessary conflicts between U.S. courts and those abroad according to him.