This case was heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1882. It involved the Chicago, Danville and Vincennes Railroad Company, James W. Elwell and R. Biddle Roberts (the plaintiffs) and William R. Fosdick, James D. Fish, Frederick W. Huidekoper, Thomas W Shannon and John M. Dennison (the defendants). The plaintiffs had filed a bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, seeking to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' rights to the use of certain railroad tracks. The defendants had obtained a judgment in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Illinois, which granted them the right to use the tracks. The plaintiffs argued that the judgment was void because the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Supreme Court held that the judgment was valid and that the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana had no jurisdiction to enjoin the defendants from using the tracks. The Court concluded that the judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Illinois was binding on the parties and that the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana had no jurisdiction to enjoin the defendants from using the tracks.

In the case of Chicago, Danville and Vincennes Railroad Company, James W. Elwell and R. Biddle Roberts v. William R. Fosdick, James D. Fish, Frederick W Huidekoper, Thomas W Shannon and John M Dennison (1881), the dissenting opinion was that the lower court's decision should be reversed because it had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another state in which there is an entire absence of diversity between them as to citizenship or residence; this being true even though some members may have been non-residents when they were made parties defendant in such suit on account of their interest in certain bonds issued by a corporation created under the laws of another state with its principal place for business within such other state. The dissent argued that since none but residents can sue or be sued upon contracts made within their own states without regard to any foreign element involved therein - unless authorized so to do by statute - then it follows that if all parties are not only residents but also citizens either at law or factually then no federal court has jurisdiction over them regardless whether they are suing each other on contract claims arising out from transactions occurring outside their respective states' boundaries