In Mollan and Others v. Torrance, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens from one state against citizens from another. The plaintiffs were British subjects who had purchased land in Maryland before it became part of the United States. They argued that they should be able to sue for damages in their home country, rather than having to go through a U.S. court system which did not recognize their rights as foreign nationals under international law at that time. The defendants argued that since Maryland was now part of the United States, its courts must have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute involving its citizens regardless of where those parties resided or what nationality they held when they acquired title to property there originally. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for the majority opinion affirming that federal courts do indeed have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between two states' citizens even if those parties are foreign nationals with respect to each other's countries; however he also noted that this ruling does not apply if both sides agree otherwise or if Congress has provided specific legislation allowing suits between non-citizens in different states within U.S borders without requiring them first seek redress abroad according to international law standards applicable at the time such suit is filed .

In Mollan and Others v. Torrance, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a debtor could be held liable for payment of a debt that had been contracted before he became insolvent. The majority opinion found in favor of the creditors, holding that they were entitled to recover their debts from the debtor's estate despite his insolvency at the time of judgment. Justice Johnson dissented on this point, arguing that it would be unjust to hold an individual responsible for paying off debts incurred prior to becoming insolvent when there is no way for him or her to pay them back without resorting to fraud or other illegal means. He further argued that such a ruling would create an incentive for individuals not only to contract more debt than they can reasonably expect themselves able to repay but also encourage lenders into making loans which are likely never going be repaid due solely because of changing economic circumstances beyond either party’s control. In conclusion, Justice Johnson believed it was unfair and unwise policy-wise as well as legally wrong under existing law for creditors who have lent money knowing full well about potential risks associated with lending should then turn around and seek repayment from those same borrowers after they become unable through no fault of their own pay back what has been borrowed