Alfred Ingraham and George Read, assignees in trust of the Grand Gulf Railroad and Banking Company, appealed a decision made by the Supreme Court of Mississippi. The case involved Henry S. Dawson, administrator of Moses Groves who had passed away; Josiah Stansbrough; and John R. Marshall. The appellants argued that they were entitled to certain lands under an act from Congress which granted them land for building a railroad line between two points on the Pearl River in Mississippi. However, this act was later repealed by another act which gave those same lands to other individuals instead - namely Dawson et al., as administrators or executors of Groves' estate (who had previously owned said lands). Thus began a long legal battle over ownership rights between both parties before it eventually reached the US Supreme Court where it was decided that since there were no longer any valid claims against these particular tracts of land due to their repealment via congressional acts, then neither party could make any claim upon them whatsoever - thus ending this dispute once and for all time.

In Alfred Ingraham and George Read, Assignees in Trust of the Grand Gulf Railroad and Banking Company v. Henry S. Dawson, Administrator of Moses Groves, Deceased; Josiah Stansbrough; and John R. Marshall (1857), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens from different states when it involved an action for debt on bonds issued by a corporation created under Mississippi law. The majority opinion held that such cases were not within the scope of diversity jurisdiction because they did not involve any controversy between citizens of different states but rather only between citizens of one state - Mississippi - who happened to be suing each other in federal court instead of their own state courts. In dissent, Justice Grier argued that this interpretation would lead to absurd results as it would allow corporations organized under one state's laws to sue its own members in another state's courts while denying them access to their home-state courts where they could more easily obtain justice due to familiarity with local laws and customs governing corporate matters like those at issue here. He concluded that Congress must have intended for all controversies arising out of contracts made under the authority or sanction given by any State government should be considered "diversity" cases subjecting them both parties' right litigate before federal tribunals if either party so desired regardless which side initiated suit first or what type contract was being enforced