In De La Croix v. Chamberlain, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens from different states. The plaintiff, de la Croix, was an inhabitant of Louisiana and owned land in Mississippi which he leased to Chamberlain who resided in Georgia. When Chamberlain failed to pay rent for two years according to their agreement, de la Croix sued him in a Louisiana court. However, since both parties were not residents of Louisiana at the time they entered into their contract and neither party resided there when suit was brought against them by de la Croix; it raised questions as to whether or not the state court had jurisdiction over this matter between non-residents. After considering all arguments presented before it on appeal from the Circuit Court for Mississippi Territory (which dismissed de la Crox's complaint), Chief Justice John Marshall delivered his opinion that although no express provision existed granting such power under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of U.S Constitution; nevertheless due process required that each State should have authority over controversies between its own citizens and those residing elsewhere if they are within its territorial limits when suit is commenced against them regardless where contract originated or what may be residence either party at time action is instituted . Thus ultimately ruling that Louisiana courts did indeed have jurisdiction over this particular case between non-resident parties based upon principles established by US Constitution’s Due Process clause

In De La Croix v. Chamberlain, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving land located in another state. The majority opinion held that the lower court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority over out-of-state property and parties. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that since both parties were citizens of the same state as the lower court, they should be allowed to litigate their dispute there; second, he contended that Congress had granted states concurrent jurisdiction over cases involving out-of-state lands when it passed an act allowing such suits in 1802. He concluded by asserting that if either party wished to challenge or appeal any ruling made by the lower court concerning out-of-state land disputes then they could do so through federal courts instead of having their suit dismissed outright due to lack of jurisdictional authority.