In the case of Lessee of Philip Hickey et al. v. James A. Stewart et al., 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 in which title to land located in a third state was at issue. The plaintiff argued that because the parties were all non-residents, and since no part of the controversy arose within any particular state, it should be heard by federal courts instead of those belonging to any single state. The defendant countered that since title to real estate is always determined according to local laws, only a court with jurisdiction over such matters could hear this dispute and render judgment on it accordingly; thus, they claimed that only a court within their own home states would have proper authority for deciding this matter between them. After considering both sides’ arguments carefully, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of defendants: while federal courts may have concurrent jurisdiction when two or more states are involved in litigation concerning property rights across multiple jurisdictions, here there was no need for such intervention as each party resided exclusively within their respective home states and therefore could bring suit before its own local tribunal without interference from other authorities outside these boundaries

In the dissenting opinion of Lessee of Philip Hickey et al., Plaintiff in Error, v. James A. Stewart et al., Justice McLean argued that the court should have found for the plaintiff and reversed a decision from an earlier state court case. He believed that when a contract was made between two parties, it could not be changed without both parties' consent; however, he noted that this had been done in this particular case by one party unilaterally changing their part of the agreement after it had already been agreed upon and signed by both sides. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some ambiguity or uncertainty about what exactly was agreed to initially, then any changes should still require mutual assent since they would essentially be creating new terms which neither side originally consented to before signing off on the original contract. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that because no such mutual assent occurred here with regards to any changes being made to either party's obligations under their initial agreement - regardless of whether those changes were necessary due to some kind of ambiguity or lack thereof - then justice demanded finding for the plaintiff and reversing an earlier state court ruling against them