Charles Flowers, survivor of Alice Flowers, brought a case against Francis Foreman, surviving partner of Christian Keller. The dispute was over the ownership and possession of certain slaves that had been in the possession of Alice Flowers at her death. Charles claimed that he was entitled to their freedom as they were his mother's property when she died. However, Francis argued that under Virginia law at the time these slaves were considered part of Christian Keller's estate and thus belonged to him after his death. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Charles Flower’s claim on the basis that Alice Flower’s will clearly stated her intention for them to be freed upon her death which superseded any state laws regarding inheritance rights or slave status. This ruling established an important precedent for future cases involving slavery and testamentary dispositions by establishing clear guidelines about how wills should be interpreted with regards to freeing enslaved persons upon a testator's passing away

In Charles Flowers, Survivor of Alice Flowers v. Francis Foreman, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in a different state. The majority opinion held that the lower court did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that under Article III of the Constitution, citizens are entitled to sue each other in any federal or state court regardless of their residence; thus he concluded that it was within the power of Congress to grant such authority to states for cases involving citizens from different states. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress had granted such authority then there would be no need for special legislation as proposed by some members of Congress at various times throughout history and therefore it should be assumed they intended for all courts to have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters without requiring additional authorization from Congress itself. Finally, Justice Grier stated his belief that allowing suits between citizens residing in different states would serve as an important check on potential abuses which could arise when only one party is able to bring suit due solely based upon their residency status rather than merit or justice alone