In Clements v. Machebeuf et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another, when all parties were non-residents in the forum state. The case arose out of a dispute between two Colorado mining companies and their respective shareholders, who were residents from different states. The Supreme Court held that under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 (the Diversity Clause) of the U.S Constitution, federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving diversity among parties from different states where none are domiciled in the forum state. In this case, since neither party was domiciled in Colorado at any time relevant to this suit, it followed that only federal courts could hear such disputes between them and not those within individual states like Colorado's own court system.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Clements v. Machebeuf et al., arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and misinterpreted a prior decision of this Court. He argued that under Colorado state law, which was applicable to this case, an executor could not be held liable for debts incurred by his testator unless he had personally assumed them or authorized their payment. The majority's ruling would have allowed creditors to hold an executor responsible for such debts without any proof of personal liability on his part; Justice Field believed this interpretation was wrong and contrary to established precedent. Furthermore, he noted that if it were true that an executor could be held liable regardless of whether they had assumed responsibility for a debt or not, then there would be no incentive whatsoever for creditors to seek out those who actually owed them money - instead they could simply go after whoever happened to be administering the estate at any given time. This result was clearly unfair and unjustified according to Justice Field's view of both Colorado state law as well as existing Supreme Court decisions on similar matters.