In Fowler et al. v. Lindsey, et al., the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving a dispute over land in Kentucky between two parties: James Fowler and his associates (the plaintiffs) and John Lindsey and his associates (the defendants). The plaintiffs argued that they had purchased the land from an Indian tribe, while the defendants claimed to have acquired it through a grant from Virginia's legislature. After examining both sides' arguments, Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth concluded that neither party had valid title to the property because it was located within lands reserved for Native Americans by treaty with Great Britain at the end of Revolutionary War. He further held that since no one could legally own this particular tract of land, there was no cause for action on either side's part; thus he dismissed their claims against each other without prejudice. This decision established important precedent regarding ownership rights in areas previously occupied by Native American tribes before cession or conquest by European settlers.

In Fowler v. Lindsey, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction and could hear the case. However, Justice Chase dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that under Article III of the Constitution only federal courts can exercise judicial power in cases between citizens of different states; second, he argued that even if Congress had granted such authority to state courts it would be unconstitutional because it would violate principles of separation of powers by allowing one branch (the judiciary) to grant authority normally reserved for another branch (Congress). Ultimately, Justice Chase concluded that since there was no constitutional basis for granting such authority to state courts they should not be allowed to hear cases between citizens from different states.