In the case of Goldsborough v. Orr, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant. The plaintiff argued that since he was not domiciled in the same state as his opponent, it would be unconstitutional for him to be sued there. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and held that states have authority to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents when they are involved in matters within their borders. In this particular case, both parties were citizens of Maryland but lived in different counties; thus, it was determined that Maryland courts could hear and decide on disputes between them regardless of residency status. This decision established precedent for future cases involving similar jurisdictional issues between residents and non-residents alike.

In the case of Goldsborough v. Orr, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have dismissed plaintiff's writ of error. The majority had held that the defendant was entitled to judgment because there was no evidence presented by plaintiff to support his claim for relief. However, Justice Story disagreed with this conclusion and argued that it is well established law in such cases as this one "that when an issue has been joined between parties on any matter of fact or law, and they proceed to trial before a jury upon such issue; if either party fails to introduce legal proof sufficient to sustain his cause or defence, yet still if there be some slight proof adduced on either side tending towards its establishment, then it becomes proper for the jury under all circumstances so far as respects their verdict." He further noted that even though plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence at trial due to negligence or mistake on his part, he should still be allowed an opportunity for review through a writ of error since justice demands it. Therefore Justice Story concluded that dismissal of plaintiff's writ was improper and reversed the decision made by majority opinion.