In the 1907 case of Ex Parte The First National Bank of Chicago, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over jurisdiction. The bank had filed a bill in equity against several parties to foreclose on a mortgage. One defendant, who was not personally served and resided outside Illinois (where the suit was brought), objected to being made part of this proceeding without his consent. He argued that he should be allowed to litigate separately in his own state court where he could have personal service. The Supreme Court held that when there are multiple defendants involved in an action relating to property within its jurisdiction, it is permissible for a federal court sitting as a court of equity to adjudicate upon all claims and interests related thereto even if some defendants were not personally served or did not voluntarily appear before it. This decision affirmed the principle that courts can exercise 'in rem' jurisdiction - power based on control over specific property - regardless of whether they also have 'in personam' jurisdiction - power over individual persons involved.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte The First National Bank of Chicago argued that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction. It was contended that, as per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, federal courts only have authority to hear cases involving "controversies" between parties and not mere questions or propositions. In this case, there was no controversy presented before the court; rather it was a question about whether certain bonds were taxable under Illinois law. Therefore, according to this view, it should be beyond their purview to issue an advisory opinion on such matters which are essentially within state jurisdiction. Furthermore, they believed that even if there existed a controversy regarding taxability of these bonds under state law - it would still fall outside federal jurisdiction unless some constitutional right or protection is violated by said taxation scheme.