In Broderick's Executor v. Magraw, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of attachment against a non-resident defendant. The case arose out of a dispute between two parties over a debt. The plaintiff, Broderick's Executor, sought to recover a debt from the defendant, Magraw. The plaintiff filed a suit in a Pennsylvania state court and obtained a writ of attachment against Magraw, who was a non-resident of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of attachment against a non-resident defendant. The Court reasoned that the writ of attachment was a form of process, and that the state court did not have the power to issue process against a non-resident defendant. The Court further held that the writ of attachment was an exercise of the state court's jurisdiction, and that the state court did not have the power to exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. The Court's decision in Broderick's Executor v. Magraw established that a state court does not have the authority to issue a writ of attachment against a non-resident defendant. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of state court jurisdiction.

In Broderick's Executor v. Magraw, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving federal law. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have such authority and thus dismissed the appeal of Magraw, who sought to recover money from an executor appointed by a federal district court in California. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that there is no constitutional provision or statute which explicitly prohibits states from exercising jurisdiction over cases involving federal laws. He further argued that it would be unfair for individuals living in different states to receive unequal treatment under similar circumstances simply because one lived within the boundaries of a particular state while another resided outside those boundaries. Ultimately, Field concluded that Congress should decide if they wish to limit or expand the power of state courts when dealing with matters concerning federal laws and regulations rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation alone.