The U.S. Supreme Court case Mexican National Railroad Company v. Davidson in 1894 revolved around a dispute over the payment of bonds issued by the railroad company. The plaintiff, Davidson, was an American citizen who purchased these bonds and later sued for non-payment after they matured. The defendant, Mexican National Railroad Company argued that as it was incorporated under Mexican law and its operations were based in Mexico, it should not be subject to U.S jurisdiction or laws regarding debt repayment obligations. However, the court ruled against this argument stating that since the company had conducted business within U.S borders (including selling their securities), they could indeed be held accountable under American law despite being a foreign corporation. Therefore, even though its primary place of operation was outside America's geographical boundaries; engaging in commercial activities within them made it liable to abide by local legislation. This ruling established an important precedent concerning international corporate responsibility and cross-border legal jurisdictions which continues to influence similar cases today.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Mexican National Railroad Company v. Davidson, it was argued that there was a lack of jurisdiction to hear this case in U.S courts. The dissenting justices believed that since both parties were foreign corporations and the contract dispute originated from actions taken place outside of U.S territory, it should not be within their purview to decide on such matters. They contended that allowing such cases would set a dangerous precedent where any international disputes could potentially be brought before American courts simply because one party had some form of business presence in America. This they felt would overstep boundaries and interfere with other nations' sovereignty rights, as well as burden American courts with cases better suited for international arbitration or local jurisdictions where the events occurred.