In the case of Richter v. Union Trust Company & Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a trust created by a will was valid. The trust was created by the will of a deceased man, and the trust was to be managed by the Union Trust Company. The trust was challenged by the deceased man's widow, who argued that the trust was invalid because it was created without her consent. The Supreme Court held that the trust was valid. The Court noted that the trust was created in accordance with the law of the state in which the deceased man lived, and that the trust was created in accordance with the terms of the will. The Court also noted that the trust was created for the benefit of the deceased man's children, and that the trust was not created for the benefit of the widow. The Court concluded that the trust was valid and that the widow had no right to challenge it. The Court held that the trust was valid and enforceable, and that the Union Trust Company was entitled to manage the trust in accordance with the terms of the will.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Richter v. Union Trust Company & Others, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving an insolvent corporation even if it involved property located outside of its borders, as long as there were sufficient contacts with the state for jurisdiction to attach. In this particular case, he noted that all parties resided in Pennsylvania and all assets were held by trustees appointed by the Pennsylvania courts; thus, he believed these facts provided enough contact with Pennsylvania for it to have proper jurisdiction over this matter. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that Congress did not intend on limiting states' power when they passed legislation regarding bankruptcy proceedings - instead they intended on providing uniformity among different states' laws so creditors would know what their rights are regardless of which state they reside in or where their debtors live or own property. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that because there was sufficient contact between Pennsylvania and this dispute for it to exercise its authority over matters related to insolvency proceedings within its borders - including those involving out-of-state properties - then the lower court's ruling should stand and be affirmed rather than overturned by the Supreme Court like his colleagues had done here today.