In the case of Lloyd v. Alexander et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against citizens of that same other state. The plaintiff, William Lloyd, was from Maryland and sued defendants who were also from Maryland in South Carolina's courts. The Supreme Court held that South Carolina did not have jurisdiction because it violated Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the United States Constitution which states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases… between Citizens of different States." This decision established precedent for determining when one State has authority over disputes involving citizens from different states.

In the case of Lloyd v. Alexander et al., Chief Justice Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted an injunction to prevent Alexander from selling land belonging to Lloyd, as it was unclear whether or not there had been any wrong committed by either party. He noted that while it may be true that Alexander had taken possession of the property without permission, this did not necessarily mean he was guilty of trespass and thus liable for damages. Furthermore, Marshall pointed out that even if such a trespass had occurred, granting an injunction would still be inappropriate because no evidence existed showing how much damage might have been caused by such action and therefore what amount could reasonably be awarded in compensation. Finally, Marshall concluded his dissent with an argument against allowing courts to grant injunctions on matters where they lack sufficient information about all parties involved; instead suggesting these cases should only proceed after both sides are given ample opportunity to present their respective arguments before a jury trial is held so justice can truly prevail.