The Harriman case was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a dispute between the owners of a steamboat, the Harriman, and the owners of a wharf in the port of New York. The wharf owners had refused to allow the steamboat to dock at their wharf, claiming that the steamboat was too large and would damage their property. The steamboat owners sued the wharf owners for damages, claiming that the wharf owners had violated the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the steamboat owners, holding that the wharf owners had violated the commerce clause by unreasonably interfering with interstate commerce. The Court held that the wharf owners had no right to prevent the steamboat from docking at their wharf, and that the steamboat owners were entitled to damages for the interference. The Court also held that the commerce clause of the Constitution was intended to protect interstate commerce from unreasonable interference by state and local governments. The Harriman case was an important decision in the development of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. The decision established the principle that state and local governments cannot unreasonably interfere with interstate commerce, and that the commerce clause of the Constitution is intended to protect interstate commerce from such interference. The decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the commerce clause.

In The Harriman case, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the defendant resided. Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that it is not within the power of any State to exercise jurisdiction over citizens of other States without their consent. He argued that this would be contrary to both natural justice and fundamental principles established under our Constitution. Furthermore, he noted that if such authority were granted to states then they could impose laws on non-residents which are inconsistent with those imposed upon residents and thus create inequality among citizens based solely on residence status. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that while Congress has been given certain powers regarding interstate commerce and foreign affairs it does not have authority to grant states such broad jurisdictional powers as proposed in this case.