In Eliason et al. v. Henshaw, 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 plaintiffs were two individuals from Virginia who sued an individual in Maryland for non-payment of debt and sought damages in excess of $500. The defendant argued that because he was not a citizen of Virginia, the state court did not have jurisdiction over him or his property located in Maryland and thus could not award any damages against him. After examining relevant statutes and precedents, the Court held that although it is true that each state has exclusive authority within its own borders, this does not mean that one state cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over persons residing outside its boundaries when they are involved with matters arising within those boundaries; therefore, since all parties resided within their respective states at the time suit was brought before them by virtue of diversity citizenship requirements under Article III Section 2 Clause 1of U.S Constitution ,the State Courts had proper jurisdiction to hear this matter .

In Eliason et al. v. Henshaw, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court. He argued that a state court had no jurisdiction over a case involving citizens from different states and therefore could not issue an injunction against them as it was in violation of Article III Section 2 of the Constitution which gives exclusive original jurisdiction to federal courts in such cases. Furthermore, he stated that even if there were some form of equity involved, it would be up to Congress to decide whether or not they should grant relief through legislation rather than for a state court to do so on its own authority. In conclusion, Marshall believed that since this case fell under federal jurisdiction and did not involve any violations by either party within their respective states' laws then it should have been heard by a federal court instead of being decided upon by one particular state's judiciary system alone.