The Supreme Court case of Camden v. Mayhew was a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Maine. The plaintiff, Camden, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Mayhew, in 1820. Mayhew, however, argued that he had never sold the land to Camden and that he still owned it. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Camden, ruling that he had indeed purchased the land from Mayhew in 1820. The Court found that Mayhew had made a verbal agreement to sell the land to Camden and that Camden had paid the agreed-upon price. The Court also found that Mayhew had failed to provide any evidence that he had not sold the land to Camden. As a result, the Court ruled in favor of Camden and held that he was the rightful owner of the land.

In the dissenting opinion of Camden v. Mayhew, Justice Story argued that a state court should not be allowed to hear cases involving federal questions or those arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. He believed that this power was reserved for federal courts alone and could not be delegated to state courts. Furthermore, he argued that allowing states to adjudicate such matters would lead to conflicting decisions between different states on issues of national importance which would undermine uniformity in law throughout the country. In addition, he noted that Congress had never given any indication it intended for state courts to have jurisdiction over these types of cases and thus there was no basis upon which they could do so without violating Article III's grant of exclusive authority over all federal questions exclusively granted by Congress. Finally, Justice Story concluded his dissent by noting how important it is for citizens across America to know their rights are protected regardless if they live in one particular state or another; therefore granting states with jurisdiction over constitutional matters would only serve as an impediment towards achieving this goal