In M'Arthur v. Browder, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens from different states. The plaintiff, M’Arthur, brought suit against Browder in Georgia for breach of contract and sought damages. However, both parties were citizens of different states at the time that they entered into their agreement and thus it was argued that only federal courts could have jurisdiction over such cases under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution (the “diversity clause”). The Supreme Court held that although diversity between parties is necessary for federal court jurisdiction in most cases, this particular case did not involve any controversy between two or more states nor did it affect foreign commerce; therefore there was no need to invoke federal court jurisdiction as provided by Article III Section 2 Clause 1. As such, the State Courts had authority to hear this dispute since neither party raised an objection based on lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction when they appeared before them.

In M'Arthur v. Browder, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction and could proceed with the case. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that since both parties were citizens of different states, it was not within the power of any one state to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them; instead, he believed that only federal courts had such authority under Article III of the Constitution. Furthermore, he noted that if each party could bring suit in their own respective home-state courts then there would be no uniformity or consistency in decisions between those jurisdictions which would lead to confusion and chaos among litigants seeking justice across multiple states. Finally, Justice Story concluded by asserting that allowing individual states to exercise exclusive judicial powers over cases involving out-of-state parties violated principles established by prior Supreme Court rulings as well as fundamental constitutional rights granted by Article III's grant of original jurisdiction for all controversies between citizens from different States before federal tribunals