In St. Romes v. Levee Steam Cotton Press Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving a contract dispute between a Louisiana corporation and a citizen of Mississippi. The dispute arose when the Mississippi citizen, St. Romes, contracted with the Louisiana corporation, Levee Steam Cotton Press Company, to build a cotton press. St. Romes alleged that the company had failed to fulfill its contractual obligations and sought damages. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court reasoned that the contract was made between a citizen of Mississippi and a corporation of Louisiana, and thus the case was governed by the laws of Mississippi. The Court further held that the state court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the contract was made in Mississippi and the cause of action arose in Mississippi. The Court concluded that the state court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and that the case should be heard in a federal court. The Court noted that the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case because it involved a contract dispute between citizens of different states. The Court also noted that the federal court was the proper forum for the case because it was the only court that could provide a uniform interpretation of the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in St. Romes v. Levee Steam Cotton Press Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and should be overturned. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether one party has knowledge or not of any subsequent changes in law which might affect it; thus, he believed that the defendant had no right to avoid its obligations under this particular contract due to an intervening change in state law. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if such contracts were allowed to be voided by either party whenever there was a change in applicable laws then all prior agreements would become uncertain and unreliable - something which could have far-reaching consequences for commerce as well as individuals' rights and property interests. Ultimately, he concluded his dissent by urging the Court to reconsider its ruling so as not to undermine existing legal principles regarding contractual obligations between parties who are unaware of any intervening changes in law at the time they enter into their agreement.