Edward Bradford brought a case against Robert W. Williams to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an unpaid debt from 1837, when Bradford had loaned Williams $1,000 in order to purchase land in Alabama. In 1840, Williams sold this land and used some of the proceeds to pay off his debt with interest; however he still owed $400 plus interest at 8%. When Bradford tried to collect on this remaining amount, Williams refused payment claiming that it had been too long since he borrowed the money and therefore any obligation for repayment was extinguished by statute of limitations laws in Alabama which stated that all debts must be collected within six years or they would become void after that time period. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edward Bradford stating that although there were state statutes limiting how long creditors could pursue collection on debts due them, these did not apply if payments were made during those six-year periods as it extended their right to collect beyond what was allowed under state law. Therefore because William’s had paid part of his debt during those 6 years before trying to avoid paying back the remainder due him (plus interest), he still remained liable for repayment according court ruling

In the case of Edward Bradford v. Robert W. Williams, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which both parties were citizens of different states and resided in different states at the time suit was commenced. The majority opinion held that such suits could not be maintained in any other forum than that provided for by Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among several States; however, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there is no express provision or necessary implication found within either Article III or IV of the Constitution granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over cases involving citizens from multiple states; secondly, he contended that if it were true then all actions between citizens residing in different States must necessarily be brought before Federal Courts regardless as to their nature or subject matter - something which would have been contrary to common law practice prior to adoption of the Constitution and thus should not be assumed without explicit language being included therein.