Adam Bartle brought a case against William D. Nutt, the administrator of George Coleman's estate in 1830. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that had been owed to Adam Bartle by George Coleman prior to his death. In order for Adam Bartle to receive payment from the deceased’s estate, he needed proof that the debt existed and was due at the time of death. Unfortunately, no such evidence could be found as it had not been recorded in any public records or books kept by either party involved in this transaction. As a result, Adam Bartle argued that verbal testimony should be accepted as sufficient evidence of his claim since there were multiple witnesses who could attest to its validity; however, William D. Nutt disagreed with this assertion and denied him payment on behalf of George Coleman's estate citing lack of written documentation as grounds for dismissal without further consideration or investigation into other forms of proof presented before court proceedings began.. Ultimately, after much deliberation between both parties' legal counsels and review by Supreme Court justices presiding over this case - it was determined that verbal testimony would indeed suffice under these circumstances given all available facts surrounding them were deemed credible enough for verification purposes despite lacking physical documents attesting their veracity .

In the case of Adam Bartle vs. William D. Nutt, Administrator of George Coleman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen from one state against another in which both parties were citizens of different states and where the cause arose out of a contract made in one state but performed in another. The majority opinion held that such actions could not be maintained as they would interfere with interstate commerce and violate principles established by Congress under its power to regulate commerce among several states. However, Justice Story dissented on this point arguing that it was within the province of each individual state to determine what cases should be heard within their own courts and thus he argued that there was no reason why such suits should not be allowed if they did not conflict with any federal law or regulation concerning interstate commerce. He further argued that allowing these types of suits would encourage uniformity between different states' laws regarding contracts made across borders while still preserving each individual's right to seek redress for wrongs committed against them regardless of where those wrongs occurred or who perpetrated them.