Minnesota Company v. National Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1865. The dispute arose when Minnesota Company, an insurance company, sued National Company for breach of contract after it failed to pay on a policy issued to one of its customers. At issue before the court was whether or not Minnesota had standing to sue since it did not have any direct contractual relationship with National and only acted as an agent for another insurer who had originally issued the policy in question. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that Minnesota did indeed have standing because they were acting as agents for another party and thus could bring suit against National even though there was no direct contractual relationship between them. This decision established important precedent regarding agency law which has been applied in numerous cases since then involving similar disputes over third-party contracts and obligations

In Minnesota Company v. National Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two companies could be enforced in a state other than where it was created. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy of the state in which enforcement was sought. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that contracts are valid when they do not violate any laws or policies of either party's home state, regardless of what those states' respective public policies may dictate. He reasoned that if parties to a contract have agreed upon its terms without violating their own local laws, then there is no reason why such an agreement should not be enforceable elsewhere as well. Furthermore, he noted that allowing for interstate enforcement would help promote commerce among different states by providing more certainty and predictability to contractual relationships across jurisdictions.