In Daniel F. Strother v. John B. C. Lucas, 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 another state against a citizen of that same state in which it sat for damages arising from breach of contract and tortious injury committed outside its borders. The plaintiff argued that since he was not domiciled in the forum state, he could not be sued there under its laws and therefore any judgment rendered would be void as beyond the power of the court to render such judgments on non-residents without their consent or appearance before it; however, defendant contended that since both parties were citizens within said State at time suit was commenced, then venue should lie therein regardless where cause arose or how long either party resided elsewhere prior thereto. Ultimately, after reviewing relevant statutes and case law from other states on this matter, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that while courts may have jurisdiction over actions between citizens when they are residents thereof at commencement thereof even though cause arise outofstateand oneorbothsubsequently removedtherefrom yetinthisinstanceplaintiffwasnotaresidentattimeofthecommencementofthesuitbuthadbeensoonlyfortwoyearspreviouslywhereasdefendanthadbeenaresidentforoverthirtyyearspriortoinstitutionofsuithencecourtlackedjurisdictiontorenderjudgmentagainstnonresidentwithouthisconsentorappearancebeforeitandcon

In Daniel F. Strother v. John B. C Lucas, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving land located in two different states and owned by citizens of those respective states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority to adjudicate disputes between citizens of different states; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on the grounds that there is no constitutional provision prohibiting such an exercise of power by a state court and thus its judgment should be respected as valid under principles of comity among sovereigns. He argued further that even if there were some doubt about the validity or enforceability of such judgments, they could still be enforced through other means available in equity courts or federal tribunals with concurrent jurisdiction over matters arising out of diversity cases like this one. Finally, he noted that Congress has recognized similar decisions made by foreign countries when it comes to enforcing their own laws within our borders so why shouldn't we do likewise for our own sister-states?