Preston v. Tremble was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1813. The dispute arose when William Preston, an attorney from Virginia, sued James Tremble for failing to pay him $1,000 as agreed upon in a contract between them. Preston argued that he had performed his duties under the contract and thus should be paid accordingly; however, Tremble claimed that because of certain circumstances beyond his control he could not fulfill his obligations under the agreement and therefore did not owe any money to Preston. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Preston and held that even though there may have been some unforeseen events which prevented Tremble from fulfilling its contractual obligations it still must compensate Preston for services rendered according to their agreement. This decision established precedent regarding contracts being binding regardless of external factors outside of either party’s control or knowledge at the time they entered into said agreements

In Preston v. Tremble, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court. He argued that a state could not pass laws which would impair or destroy contracts made in other states, as this was an unconstitutional infringement on Congress' power to regulate commerce between states. The majority had held that such legislation was permissible under the police powers reserved by each state for its own internal regulation and governance; however, Marshall disagreed with this interpretation of the Constitution and maintained that it violated both Article I Section 10's prohibition against any law impairing contractual obligations as well as Congress' exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce. He further noted that if individual states were allowed to interfere with contracts formed in other jurisdictions then there would be no uniformity among them and thus no real protection for citizens engaging in business across state lines.