In Spring et al. v. The South Carolina Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an insurance company incorporated in another state and doing business in the first state. The plaintiffs argued that since the insurance company was operating within their borders, they should be subject to local laws and regulations as well as any judgments rendered by local courts. However, the defendant argued that it was not subject to such jurisdiction because of its corporate status under federal law. After considering both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court held that states have no power or authority over corporations chartered by other states unless those corporations are engaged in activities which are illegal or contrary to public policy within their own borders; thus ruling against plaintiff's argument and affirming defendant's position on this matter.

In Spring et al. v. The South Carolina Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an insurance company incorporated in another state. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that states do not have authority to regulate foreign corporations and that Congress alone has power to pass laws concerning them. He argued further that if a corporation is created by one state but operates in another, it should be subject only to federal law and not local regulations or taxes imposed by either of those two states. Marshall also noted that while Congress could grant permission for such regulation, they had yet to do so at this time and thus any attempt by a state court would be unconstitutional as it would violate the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution which grants supremacy over all other laws passed within each individual State's borders when there is conflict between them and Federal Law or Treaties made with Foreign Nations under its purview.