In the case of Barr v. Gratz's Heirs, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a dispute between two citizens from different states. The plaintiff, William Barr, argued that he should be able to sue in his home state of Virginia for an unpaid debt owed by the defendant’s father who lived in Pennsylvania at the time. The defendant countered that since both parties were not residents of Virginia and because there was no contract made within its borders, it did not have jurisdiction over this matter. After considering arguments from both sides and examining relevant laws on interstate commerce and judicial authority among states, Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that although Virginia could exercise some control over matters involving non-residents if they involved contracts made within its borders or other activities taking place there; however in this instance neither applied so it lacked jurisdiction to hear such cases between citizens from different states.

In the case of Barr v. Gratz's Heirs, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds. According to Marshall, there was no legal precedent for dismissing an appeal because it had been brought too late; rather, such appeals should be decided on their merits and any delay should be taken into account when considering whether or not to grant relief. Furthermore, he noted that if this practice were adopted then it would lead to injustice as parties who had acted diligently but whose appeals were delayed through no fault of their own could still suffer from adverse decisions due to technicalities. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall believed that justice demanded that all cases be heard and decided upon their merits regardless of how long they took before being appealed.