This case was a dispute between the Booth and Tiernan families over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Indiana. The Booths claimed that they had purchased the land from the United States government in 1837, while the Tiernans argued that they had acquired the land from the original owner in 1836. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Booths, finding that the Tiernans had not acquired a valid title to the land. The Court held that the Tiernans had not obtained a valid title to the land because they had not complied with the requirements of the Land Act of 1820, which required that the land be surveyed and registered with the government before it could be sold. The Court also found that the Booths had acquired a valid title to the land, as they had complied with the requirements of the Land Act of 1820. As a result, the Court held that the Booths were the rightful owners of the land.

In the case of Booth and Others v. Tiernan, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by non-residents against residents of that state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that under the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, states must give effect to judgments rendered in other states' courts as if they were their own judgments; thus, he reasoned that a judgment obtained in one state should be given full faith and credit in another regardless of residency status. Furthermore, he noted that while there may be some exceptions to this rule for certain types of cases or parties involved (e.g., those involving public policy), none applied here since all parties were private individuals with no special relationship to any particular government entity or interest group. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that the lower court was correct when it ruled on behalf of its resident defendants based upon its interpretation of existing law at the time - namely, giving due respect to out-of-state judgments even when they involve non-resident plaintiffs suing resident defendants - and urged his colleagues on the bench not overturn this ruling without good cause