| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In Turner v. Fendall, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving federal law. The dispute arose when William Turner sued John Fendall in Maryland's General Court for failing to pay him money owed under an agreement made between them while they were both living in Virginia. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not this contract fell within the scope of federal common law and thus should be heard by a federal court instead of a state court. After considering arguments from both sides, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that since it involved matters relating to commerce among states, it did fall within the purview of federal common law and must therefore be decided by a federal tribunal rather than one established by Maryland's laws. This decision set an important precedent for future cases concerning questions about which courts have jurisdiction over certain types of disputes involving interstate commerce or other matters governed by national laws.
In Turner v. Fendall, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Maryland statute that allowed for the sale of land belonging to an intestate estate was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not, as it violated Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing any law impairing contracts without consent of all parties involved. Justice Chase dissented and argued that while he agreed with the majority's interpretation of Article I, Section 10 in general terms, he believed this particular case should be decided differently because there were no existing contracts between those affected by the statute and therefore no impairment had occurred. He further noted that if Congress had intended such statutes to be unconstitutional they would have specifically prohibited them in their legislation instead of leaving it up to state legislatures or courts to determine on a case-by-case basis what constituted an impairment under Article I, Section 10.