In Mandeville and Jamesson v. Wilson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The plaintiff, Mandeville and Jamesson, were citizens of New York while the defendant, Wilson, was a citizen of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs argued that since they were not residents or domiciled in Pennsylvania at the time their claim arose there should be no jurisdiction for any action against them in Pennsylvania courts. On appeal from an earlier decision by the Circuit Court for Philadelphia County granting judgment to Wilson on his counterclaims against Mandeville and Jamesson without allowing them to defend themselves due to lack of personal service within Pennsylvania's borders, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered an opinion affirming this ruling but also noting that if it could be shown that either party had been fraudulently deprived of their right to appear before the court then relief might still be available through other means such as writs of error or appeals from judgments rendered without proper notice being given first. Ultimately though he concluded that since both parties were non-residents when their claims arose neither would have standing under Pennsylvanian law so no further action could take place there with respect to those claims regardless how unfair it may seem in hindsight.

In Mandeville and Jamesson v. Wilson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by two citizens of New York against a citizen of Connecticut in which they sought damages for breach of contract. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority under the Constitution to hear cases between citizens from different states. However, Justice Paterson dissented on this point and argued that such suits should be heard in state courts as long as each party consented to being sued there. He reasoned that since all parties were subject to the laws of their respective states, then any dispute arising out of those laws should also be adjudicated within them rather than at federal level where only certain matters could be decided upon. Furthermore, he noted that allowing individuals from different states access to justice through their own local courts would help ensure uniformity across jurisdictions and prevent forum shopping or other abuses related thereto.