In Lyle et al. v. Rodgers, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving a dispute over land in Kentucky between two parties: John Lyle and his wife, Elizabeth; and Thomas Rodgers. The Lyles had purchased the land from one William Bell in 1812 but failed to obtain title to it until after Bell's death in 1817 when they received a deed from his heirs. Meanwhile, Rodgers had also obtained title to the same property through an earlier deed given by Bell himself before he died. The Supreme Court ultimately held that since both deeds were validly executed under state law at different times prior to Bell's death, each party was entitled to their respective interests in the property according to their respective titles as established by local laws of descent and distribution applicable at that time.

In Lyle et al. v. Rodgers, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states and foreign countries. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction in this matter because it involved parties from other states and foreign countries, which is prohibited by Article III of the Constitution. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no evidence presented to show that any party resided outside of Virginia; secondly, he argued that even if some parties were residents of another state or country at one point in time they could still be subject to Virginia's laws since they had voluntarily entered into contracts with Virginian citizens while residing within its boundaries. He concluded his dissent by stating "the power vested in Congress does not extend so far as to deprive States of their acknowledged rights."