In M'Creery's Lessee v. Somerville, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to decide a case involving land that was located in two different states. The plaintiff argued that since the property at issue straddled two states, it should be considered federal land and thus only subject to federal jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and held that each state has exclusive authority over its own territory and can exercise jurisdiction over any disputes arising within it regardless of where else they may extend. Furthermore, even though there were some elements of interstate commerce involved in this dispute due to the fact that both parties resided in different states, this did not change their decision as they found no evidence indicating Congress intended for such matters to fall under its purview instead of being handled by individual state courts. Ultimately then, this ruling established an important precedent regarding which court systems have ultimate authority when dealing with cases involving multiple jurisdictions or territories

In M'Creery's Lessee v. Somerville, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal circuit court decision. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have such authority and thus could not hear the case on appeal. However, Justice Story dissented from this ruling and argued that while Congress may limit or restrict appellate jurisdiction of state courts in certain cases involving federal law, it has never done so in this particular instance. He further noted that there is no express prohibition against appeals to state courts for decisions made by federal circuit courts and therefore concluded that states should be allowed to exercise their traditional power of review over such matters unless expressly prohibited by Congress.