In Mandeville v. Welch, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which both parties were citizens of different states. The plaintiff argued that he should be allowed to bring his case before the federal courts because it involved two citizens from different states and thus fell under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The defendant countered that since neither party resided in or had any business dealings with either state, there was no basis for federal jurisdiction over this matter and instead it should be heard by a state court. After considering all arguments presented, the Supreme Court ruled that while Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce through its power granted under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; however they did not have authority to extend their powers into matters concerning private individuals such as this dispute between two citizens from separate states. Therefore, they concluded that only a State court could hear this particular case due to lack of Federal jurisdiction on such matters involving private individuals who are not engaged in interstate commerce activities or other related activities regulated by Congress

In Mandeville v. Welch, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the suit. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had given state courts concurrent jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states; secondly, he argued that even if Congress hadn't done so explicitly, they should be assumed to have granted such authority due to its necessity for justice and fairness in interstate disputes. He concluded by stating his belief that "the power is vested somewhere" for these types of suits and urged further consideration on this issue by Congress or future decisions from the Court itself.