In Thomas Leland and Others v. David Wilkinson, 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 plaintiffs were citizens of Massachusetts who sued defendant Wilkinson, a citizen of Rhode Island, in Massachusetts courts for breach of contract. Wilkinson argued that since he was not domiciled in Massachusetts and did not have any property there, the state court lacked jurisdiction over him. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that when two parties are from different states but enter into an agreement within one state's borders then it is reasonable for that same state to exercise its power to enforce such contracts through its own courts regardless if either party has any property or residence within said boundaries. This decision established precedent which still stands today; allowing states to exercise their judicial powers even when both parties involved do not reside or possess property therein as long as they entered into an agreement while physically present in said state's territory

In Thomas Leland and Others v. David Wilkinson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Rhode Island statute that allowed creditors to collect debts from debtors' property violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause because it only applied prospectively and thus could not be considered an impairment of existing contracts. However, Justice McLean dissented on this point, arguing that although the law may have been prospective in nature, its effect was retroactive as it impaired existing contracts by allowing creditors to collect more than they were legally entitled to under those agreements. He further argued that such laws should only be upheld if there is a clear public necessity for them; otherwise they are unconstitutional violations of contract rights guaranteed by both state and federal constitutions.