In the case of King v. Riddle, a dispute arose between two parties over ownership of a slave named Frank. The plaintiff, William King, claimed that he had purchased Frank from one John Smith in 1808 and was therefore entitled to his possession. However, defendant Thomas Riddle argued that he had bought the same slave from Smith at an earlier date and thus held title to him. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with King on the basis that there was no evidence presented by either party demonstrating any prior sale or transfer of ownership before 1808 when King acquired him; as such, it ruled in favor of granting possession to King rather than Riddle.

In King v. Riddle, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens from different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, Justice Bushrod Washington dissented on this point and argued that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has given federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction in cases where one party is a citizen of another state or foreign country. He further noted that while there may be some exceptions to this rule for certain types of contracts, they are limited in scope and do not apply here since both parties were citizens from different states at issue in this dispute. As such, he concluded that the state court should have been allowed to hear this case as it fell within its constitutional authority granted by Congress through Article III