In Clark's Executors v. Van Riemdsyk, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by executors against a non-resident defendant in another state. The case arose when two executors from Virginia sued a Dutch citizen living in New York for payment of debts owed to their deceased testator. The Supreme Court held that although states have concurrent jurisdiction over actions involving citizens of other states, they do not have exclusive authority and must respect judgments rendered by courts in other states on matters within their respective jurisdictions. Furthermore, it was determined that since the debt at issue originated from Virginia and both parties were citizens of different states, then Virginia had jurisdiction over this matter as well as New York; thus allowing either party to bring suit before either court without fear or prejudice due to conflicting laws between them.

In Clark's Executors v. Van Riemdsyk, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could exercise jurisdiction over an executor of a will who resided in another state. The majority opinion held that the state court had no such power and that it must be exercised by the courts of the other state where he resided. Justice Johnson dissented from this decision, arguing that there is nothing in either common or statute law which prevents a State from exercising jurisdiction over non-residents when they are parties to suits brought before its own tribunals. He argued further that if states were not allowed to do so, then citizens would have little protection against frauds committed by those residing outside their borders and thus justice would not be served. In conclusion, Justice Johnson believed that allowing States to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents was necessary for both practicality and fairness reasons; however his view did not prevail as the majority opinion found otherwise.