In Stewart v. Anderson, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens from different states. The plaintiff, William Stewart, sued John Anderson in North Carolina for breach of contract and sought damages for unpaid wages. Anderson argued that since he and Stewart were both citizens of different states (North Carolina and Virginia), only federal courts could hear such cases under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over controversies between citizens from two or more states as long as they are not within exclusive federal control. This decision established an important precedent which has been followed by subsequent decisions regarding diversity jurisdiction in U.S Courts ever since then

In Stewart v. Anderson, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the dissenting opinion of the court. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted according to what one party may have intended or expected from it. The majority had held that an agreement between William Stewart and John Anderson was void because it did not comply with certain requirements of Virginia law; however, Marshall believed this interpretation was too strict and would lead to injustice in many cases where contracts were made without full knowledge of applicable laws. He further noted that if such agreements could be voided on technicalities, then courts would become arbiters of all contracts instead of merely enforcing them as written by the parties involved. In conclusion, he argued for a more lenient approach when interpreting contractual obligations so long as both parties had agreed upon its terms in good faith at the time they entered into it.