Bartle v. Coleman was a Supreme Court case in which the plaintiff, Bartle, sued for damages after his property had been destroyed by the defendant's negligence. The court held that although there may have been some degree of fault on both sides, it was ultimately up to the jury to decide who should be liable for any losses suffered as a result of this incident. In its ruling, the court also established that an individual could not be held responsible for another person’s actions unless they were aware of and consented to them beforehand. This decision set an important precedent regarding liability in cases involving negligence or recklessness and has since become one of the most cited legal precedents in American law today.

In Bartle v. Coleman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had granted state courts concurrent jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states; secondly, he maintained that even if Congress had not done so explicitly, they could still exercise their power under Article III of the Constitution to do so. He concluded by stating his belief that "the great object for which [Article III] was intended" would be best served by allowing state courts to hear these types of cases when necessary.