In De Wolf v. Johnson, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning a dispute between two parties over ownership of land in Rhode Island. The plaintiff, John De Wolf, argued that he had purchased the land from one party and was entitled to possession of it. However, three other defendants claimed they were rightful owners because they had inherited it from their father who had previously owned it. The court ultimately sided with De Wolf and held that his purchase was valid even though he did not have legal title to the property at the time of sale due to an earlier deed being invalidated by another court ruling. Furthermore, since none of the defendants could prove any prior claim or right to possess said property before its sale by their father's estate administrator (who lacked authority), then De Wolf's purchase should be upheld as valid under law and thus granting him full rights over said property.

In De Wolf v. Johnson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority and thus dismissed the case. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision and argued that the Constitution gave Congress power to regulate commerce between states which included judicial proceedings as well as commercial transactions. He further stated that if Congress had chosen to do so, they could have granted state courts jurisdiction in cases where parties were from different states; however since no such legislation existed at the time of this ruling he concluded that it would be improper for him or any other judge to assume powers not explicitly given by law or delegated by Congress itself.