In the case of N. and J. Dick and Company v Hardin D. Runnels, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a contract dispute between two citizens from different states that involved property located in Texas, which at that time was an independent republic not yet admitted into the Union as a state. The Supreme Court held that because Texas was still an independent nation when the contract dispute arose, it did not fall within federal judicial power under Article III of the Constitution and therefore could not be heard by any U.S. court or tribunal; instead, it must be resolved in accordance with whatever laws were applicable in Texas at that time (which would have been those of Mexico). This ruling established important precedent regarding how disputes involving foreign nations should be handled by U.S courts going forward - namely, they cannot exercise jurisdiction unless there is some other basis for doing so provided by law or treaty agreement between them and said foreign nation(s).

In N. and J. Dick and Company v. Hardin D. Runnels, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a Texas state law that prohibited non-residents from suing in its courts violated the Constitution's Contract Clause or Full Faith and Credit Clause. The majority opinion held that it did not violate either clause because there was no contract between the parties involved, nor had any other state recognized such a contract as valid under their laws; thus, neither of these clauses applied to this case. However, Justice Catron dissented on both counts: he argued that since Texas had already passed legislation recognizing contracts made by non-residents within its borders prior to this particular suit being brought before them, they were obligated to honor those contracts under Article IV of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause regardless of whether or not one party was a resident of their state at the time when it was entered into; furthermore, he believed that even if there wasn't an existing contract between these two parties specifically (which would have been protected by Article I's Contract Clause), then Texas still should have allowed for some form of legal action against Runnels due to his breach of faith in failing to pay back what he owed according to previous agreements made with him while doing business in their jurisdiction - which is something all states are required by law do recognize as binding upon them regardless if one party is a resident or not