In Richard M. Scott v. Ezra Lunt's Administrator, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which both parties were citizens of different states and resided in different states at the time suit was filed. The plaintiff argued that since he was not present within the forum state when suit was filed, it did not have personal jurisdiction over him and thus could not hear his case. The defendant countered that since they were both citizens of different states, then their dispute should be heard by a federal court as per Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the U.S Constitution (the diversity clause). After examining precedent from other cases on this issue, including Osborn v Bank Of The United States (1824), Chief Justice Marshall concluded that although there is no express provision for such suits in either federal or state courts; however if Congress has given authority to any particular tribunal to determine controversies between two persons who are citizens of different states then it must necessarily follow that such tribunal has power to enforce its judgments upon all persons found within its territorial limits regardless where they reside or how long they may have been absent from them before judgment is rendered against them . Thus, because Congress had granted exclusive jurisdiction over diversity cases involving non-residents to federal courts through Article III Section 2 Clause 1 , only those tribunals could hear disputes between two people residing in separate states even though neither party resides within said forum

In the case of Richard M. Scott v Ezra Lunt's Administrator, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted by courts to mean something different than what is stated in the agreement. The majority opinion held that since there were no specific terms or conditions outlined in the contract, it could be interpreted differently by courts depending on circumstances surrounding its execution. However, Justice McLean argued that this interpretation would lead to uncertainty and confusion when enforcing contracts because each court may interpret them differently based on their own personal opinions rather than relying solely on what is written in an agreement. He also noted that if one party had intended for certain conditions to apply they would have included them in writing at the time of signing instead of leaving it up to a court’s discretion later down the line. Ultimately he concluded that contracts should remain binding as long as both parties agree upon all terms and conditions before executing an agreement so any disputes can be avoided altogether.