Thompson et al. v. Bowman was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to enforce a contract made in another state. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Thompson and Bowman, over a contract made in the state of Ohio. Thompson had agreed to sell a large quantity of tobacco to Bowman, who was a resident of Virginia. Bowman had paid for the tobacco in advance, but Thompson refused to deliver it. Bowman then sued Thompson in a Virginia court, claiming that the contract was valid and enforceable. Thompson argued that the Virginia court did not have the authority to enforce a contract made in another state. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Bowman, holding that the Virginia court did have the authority to enforce the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires states to recognize the laws and judicial proceedings of other states. The Court's decision in Thompson et al. v. Bowman established an important precedent for the enforcement of contracts made in other states. It also reaffirmed the principle that states must recognize the laws and judicial proceedings of other states, as required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

In the dissenting opinion of Thompson et al. v. Bowman, Justice Field argued that the majority had misinterpreted a key clause in the Constitution and failed to consider its original intent when making their decision. He believed that Congress did not have authority to pass legislation which would interfere with state laws concerning property rights, as this was an area traditionally left up to individual states. Furthermore, he argued that if such power were granted it could lead to further encroachments on state sovereignty by Congress and ultimately undermine our federalist system of government. In conclusion, Justice Field felt strongly that any attempt by Congress to regulate matters within a state should be strictly limited so as not protect both national interests and preserve local autonomy for each state in accordance with our founding principles.