In the case of Henry M. Kellogg and Others v. Robert Forsyth, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens from one state against citizens from another state in which all parties were non-residents of that particular state. The plaintiffs argued that since they were not residents of the forum where their suit was filed, it should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, the defendant contended that because he had been served with process while present in the forum's territory, he could be sued there regardless if any party resided within its borders or not. After considering both sides' arguments and examining relevant precedent cases on this issue, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of defendants holding that service upon them while present within a foreign State gave such State jurisdiction to entertain suits between non-resident parties even though neither plaintiff nor defendant resided therein at time suit commenced or when judgment rendered.

In the case of Henry M. Kellogg and Others v. Robert Forsyth, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a federal officer in order to prevent him from executing his duties under federal law. The majority opinion held that such action by the state court was unconstitutional as it violated Article III of the Constitution which grants exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving officers of the United States to courts established by Congress. However, Justice McLean dissented on this point arguing that while he agreed with much of what was stated in the majority opinion, he believed that states should have some power when it comes to restraining acts committed by federal officers within their borders if those acts are deemed illegal or unconstitutional according to state laws. He argued that allowing states no recourse would be detrimental and lead them into conflict with each other since they could not protect themselves from any wrongs done by officials appointed at Washington D.C.. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded that while there were limits on how far states could go in restraining federal officers' actions within their borders, they still had some authority and should be allowed limited powers for self-protection purposes even if it meant interfering with certain aspects of national policy execution