This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between Andrew D. Hepburn, the plaintiff in error, and Jacob Dubois, the lessee of Oliver S. Wolcott. The issue at hand was whether or not a certain bond that had been issued by Hepburn to Wolcott could be enforced against him after it had been assigned to Dubois without his knowledge or consent. In its ruling, the court held that although there was no evidence of fraud on behalf of either party in this transaction, since Hepburn did not have notice of the assignment prior to signing it he could not be held liable for any damages resulting from it and thus should not be required to pay out on said bond. This decision established an important precedent regarding contracts and their enforceability when one party is unaware they are entering into them with another individual who has previously acquired rights over such agreement through some form of transfer or assignment without their knowledge or approval.

In the case of Andrew D. Hepburn v. Jacob Dubois, lessee of Oliver S. Wolcott, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a suit between citizens from different states when it involved land located in another state and owned by one party but leased by another. The majority opinion held that such suits were not within the jurisdiction of any single state court because they did not involve property situated within its boundaries or rights dependent on its laws; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision and argued that since both parties were present in the same forum at the time suit was brought against them, then it should be allowed to proceed there regardless of where title to land lay or which law governed it. He reasoned that allowing such suits would promote justice and prevent unnecessary litigation costs for all parties involved as well as reduce delays due to jurisdictional disputes among multiple courts with conflicting interests.