In Johnson and Another v. Waters, Administrator, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to appoint an administrator to a deceased person's estate when the deceased had left no will. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to appoint an administrator in such a situation. The case arose when the deceased, a resident of the state of Georgia, died without leaving a will. The deceased's heirs petitioned the state court to appoint an administrator to the estate. The administrator was appointed, and the heirs then filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the United States, arguing that the state court had no authority to appoint an administrator in the absence of a will. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to appoint an administrator in such a situation. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to appoint an administrator to protect the interests of the deceased's heirs and creditors. The Court also noted that the state court had the power to appoint an administrator to ensure that the deceased's estate was properly administered and that the deceased's debts were paid. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to appoint an administrator to a deceased person's estate when the deceased had left no will. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to protect the interests of the deceased's heirs and creditors, and to ensure that the deceased's estate was properly administered and that the deceased's debts were paid.

In Johnson and Another v. Waters, Administrator, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by two non-residents against a resident of that state. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction in this case because it involved property located within its borders. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that there was no sufficient connection between the parties or their dispute and the State of Mississippi for it to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. He argued that since neither party resided in Mississippi nor owned any property there at issue in their dispute, they were not subject to suit under its laws and thus could not be sued before its courts without violating due process principles established by prior decisions of both federal and state courts.