In the case of Lyman A. Spalding v. The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Frederic F. Backus, plaintiff in error Lyman A. Spalding was accused by defendant Frederic F. Backus for failing to pay a debt he owed him from 1837-1838 amounting to $1,000 plus interest and costs incurred during collection efforts over the years since then totaling an additional $2,500 dollars due at that time in 1846 when this case was brought before Supreme Court Justice John McLean who presided over it as Circuit Judge for Ohio District Court at Cincinnati where it originated from and heard arguments on both sides before ruling against Mr Spaulding's claim that he had already paid off his debt with a promissory note given to Mr Backus back in 1840 which could not be found or produced as evidence so therefore ruled against him based on lack thereof thus upholding judgement made by lower court ordering payment of full amount due including interest and costs incurred since then making total sum now due being $3,500 dollars payable immediately upon final judgement rendered by Supreme Court Justice John McLean who upheld lower court decision without any further appeal allowed thus ending this long standing dispute between two parties involved once and for all after almost 10 year legal battle finally coming to its conclusion here today with justice served accordingly!

In the case of Lyman A. Spalding v The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Frederic F. Backus, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen from another state against a defendant who resided in that same other state but whose property was located within the boundaries of the forum state (New York). In this particular instance, it was determined that since both parties were citizens from outside New York and all property involved in dispute belonged to them as well, there could be no legal basis for granting jurisdiction to any court within New York's borders. Justice McLean delivered an opinion dissenting with majority ruling on this matter stating that although he agreed with their conclusion regarding lack of jurisdiction due to citizenship status and location of property belonging to each party being out-of-state; however he felt strongly that if one or more pieces evidence used in trial originated from within New York then its courts should have been allowed some form authority over proceedings related thereto even though neither plaintiff nor defendant lived there at time suit filed or when judgment rendered. He argued further than such jurisdictional power would not only protect rights individuals living outside states where disputes arise but also promote justice generally by allowing those affected access fair trials regardless geographic origin either litigant may possess