In Day and Others v. Chism, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving a dispute over land in Mississippi. The plaintiffs argued that they had purchased two tracts of land from an individual who did not have legal title to it, while the defendant claimed he was entitled to one tract as part of his inheritance from his father's estate. The court found for the plaintiffs, ruling that their purchase was valid even though it was made without knowledge or notice that there were any other claimants on either tract. Furthermore, since no deed could be produced by either party showing clear title to either property, both parties must accept whatever rights each may possess in good faith and peaceably enjoy them until some competent tribunal shall decide between them with respect to such right or claim as they may severally set up against each other.

In Day and Others v. Chism, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving land in Arkansas that was owned by citizens of Mississippi. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority over non-residents of Arkansas. Justice Johnson dissented from this decision, arguing that the Constitution does not require states to give up their power to decide cases between its own citizens and those who are not residents of their state. He argued further that if such an interpretation were adopted, then states would be unable to protect their own interests or enforce contracts made within them since they could no longer exercise control over out-of-state parties involved in disputes arising within their borders. Thus, he concluded that allowing states to maintain jurisdiction over nonresident litigants is essential for preserving justice and protecting individual rights under the law.