In Diggs and Keith v. Wolcott, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving two individuals who had been appointed by President Thomas Jefferson to serve as commissioners for settling land disputes in Ohio. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to compensation from Congress for their services, while defendant William Wolcott contended that he was not obligated to pay them because his appointment was made without congressional authorization or appropriation of funds. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that although Congress may have implicitly authorized such appointments through its general powers granted under Article I Section 8 Clause 18 of the Constitution (the Necessary and Proper Clause), it did not explicitly appropriate any funds for payment nor make any other provision regarding compensation. Thus, no obligation existed on behalf of Mr. Wolcott or anyone else to compensate these individuals for their service as commissioners in Ohio.

In Diggs and Keith v. Wolcott, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by two individuals against another individual who lived in a different state. The majority of the justices held that because the parties involved were citizens of different states, it was within the power of Congress to regulate such matters under its authority granted by Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. However, Justice Samuel Chase dissented from this opinion on several grounds. He argued that since there was no federal law regulating interstate controversies between private persons, then it should be left up to each individual state's courts to determine their own jurisdiction in such cases; he also noted that if Congress did have exclusive control over these matters then they would need explicit constitutional authorization for doing so which he felt they lacked at present. Furthermore, he argued that allowing one party (in this case Wolcott) to bring suit against another party (Diggs and Keith) without any regard for where either resided could lead to potential abuse or unfairness as well as create confusion among other states' laws regarding similar disputes.