In Rankin & Schatzell v. Scott, the Supreme Court considered a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiffs argued that they had entered into a valid agreement with the defendant to purchase certain goods and services at a specified price, but that the defendant had failed to fulfill his obligations under this agreement. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that there was sufficient evidence to prove their claim and ordering damages for them accordingly. This decision established important precedent regarding contracts and their enforcement by courts in subsequent cases.

In Rankin & Schatzell v. Scott, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of another state against a citizen of the forum state. The majority opinion held that it did not, as such suits were prohibited by the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, Justice Story dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had never enacted any legislation prohibiting such suits; secondly, he contended that even if they had done so in some way or form then it would be unconstitutional because only Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. He concluded his dissent with an assertion that "the decision is founded upon principles which are at war with all sound rules of construction."