In the case of Martin Very v. George C. Watkins, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract made between two parties in another state could be enforced in a court located in yet another state. The plaintiff, Martin Very, had entered into an agreement with defendant George C. Watkins while both were living and conducting business in Ohio; however, when it came time for Mr. Very to collect on his debt from Mr. Watkins he found himself unable to do so as they now resided and conducted business separately - one party being located within Illinois and the other within Wisconsin at that time of collection attempt by Mr. Very . After hearing arguments from both sides regarding this matter of interstate commerce law enforcement jurisdiction ,the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against enforcing such contracts across states lines due to lack of uniformity among them at that time period .

In Martin Very v. George C. Watkins, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract made between two parties in one state could be enforced by the courts of another state. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable outside of their original jurisdiction and thus denied relief for the plaintiff. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that since states are bound together by mutual obligations under the Constitution, they should recognize each other's laws as valid and binding within their own borders unless expressly prohibited by Congress or contrary to public policy considerations; he further noted that there is no evidence suggesting any prohibition against enforcing contracts across jurisdictional lines nor any indication of public policy concerns which would prevent it from being done so here. Therefore, Justice Grier concluded that if a contract has been legally formed in one state then it should be recognized as valid and binding in all other states regardless of where enforcement proceedings take place