M'Clung v. Silliman was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1821 that dealt with the issue of whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused to another person's property due to negligence. The plaintiff, M'Clung, had been hired as a contractor by Silliman and agreed to build him a house on his land. During construction, M'Clung negligently allowed some of his materials and tools to fall onto Silliman's adjacent lot which resulted in damage being done thereon. In response, Silliman sued M'Clung for damages incurred from this incident but lost at trial court level when it was determined that he did not have any legal right over the neighboring lot since he never owned it nor had possession of it prior to the accident occurring. However, upon appeal before the US Supreme Court, they reversed this decision and found that even though no ownership rights were present between them regarding said lot; still nonetheless liability should exist because of their contractual relationship whereby M’clunge undertook work on behalf of sillman thus making him responsible for any negligent acts committed during such activity regardless if they occurred offsite or not . As such ,the court ruled in favor of sillman awarding him compensation accordingly

In M'Clung v. Silliman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against a resident of the forum state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction because there was no diversity between the parties and thus no basis for federal court jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that Congress has impliedly granted states concurrent authority to exercise original jurisdiction in cases where citizens of different states are involved; second, he argued that even if Congress had not done so explicitly, it would be within its power to do so as part of its duty to protect citizens from other states who come before their courts. He concluded by stating his belief that "the great object" behind Article III's grant of judicial power is "to secure justice and protection equally among all persons."