Matthews v. Zane and Others was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1822 that dealt with the issue of whether or not an individual had a right to bring suit against another for damages caused by negligence. The plaintiff, Matthews, argued that he had been injured due to the defendants’ negligent actions and sought compensation for his injuries. The defendants argued that they were immune from liability because their actions did not constitute negligence under common law principles at the time. In its decision, the court held that individuals do have a right to sue one another for damages resulting from negligent acts and ruled in favor of Matthews. This ruling established an important precedent which has since become enshrined as part of American tort law: individuals can be held liable when their careless behavior causes harm to others.

In Matthews v. Zane and Others, 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 authority, as this would be in violation of Article III Section 2 of the Constitution which grants exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts for cases between citizens from different states. However, Justice Story dissented on the basis that Congress has never passed any legislation granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts in such matters and thus there is no legal precedent or statutory law barring state courts from exercising their own jurisdictional powers when appropriate. He argued further that allowing state courts to exercise their power in these situations could actually serve as an important check against potential abuses by federal judges who may be biased towards one party due to personal connections or other factors outside of judicial impartiality.