Morris's Cotton is a United States Supreme Court case from 1869 that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract made in another state. The case involved a contract between two parties, Morris and Cotton, in which Morris agreed to pay Cotton a certain amount of money for the purchase of cotton. Cotton sued Morris in a state court in Mississippi, claiming that Morris had failed to pay the agreed-upon amount. Morris argued that the contract was made in Alabama and that the Mississippi court had no jurisdiction to enforce it. The Supreme Court held that the Mississippi court had jurisdiction to enforce the contract, as the contract was made in Alabama but was to be performed in Mississippi. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in Alabama, but the performance of the contract was to take place in Mississippi, and thus the Mississippi court had jurisdiction to enforce the contract. The Court also held that the Mississippi court had the power to enforce the contract, as the contract was made in Alabama and the performance of the contract was to take place in Mississippi. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Mississippi court had jurisdiction to enforce the contract between Morris and Cotton, as the contract was made in Alabama but was to be performed in Mississippi. The Court also held that the Mississippi court had the power to enforce the contract, as the contract was made in Alabama and the performance of the contract was to take place in Mississippi.

In Morris's Cotton, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another state. The majority opinion held that the case could not be heard in federal court because it involved two states and thus fell under the Eleventh Amendment’s prohibition on suits between citizens of different states and foreign countries. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that Congress had granted federal courts jurisdiction over such cases through its power to regulate commerce among the several states. He noted that this power extended beyond mere regulation of trade; it also included authority to adjudicate disputes arising from commercial transactions between citizens of different states. Furthermore, he argued that since Congress has exclusive control over interstate commerce, any dispute involving such activity should be decided by a tribunal established by Congress itself—in this case, a federal court—rather than leaving it up to individual state courts which may have conflicting interests in deciding such matters fairly and impartially.