In M'Iver, Assignee, &c. v. Kyger et al., the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state court could not exercise jurisdiction over a case involving an assignee of a debt due to citizens of another state. The dispute arose when two individuals from Virginia assigned their rights in certain debts owed by citizens of Maryland to one John M’Iver who then sued for payment in Maryland courts. The defendants argued that since they were residents and citizens of Maryland, only its courts had jurisdiction over them and thus the suit should be dismissed as it was brought before those same courts by someone who was neither resident nor citizen there. In response, M’Iver argued that he was suing on behalf of himself and his co-assignees (the original creditors) which included both Virginian residents as well as non-residents; therefore he claimed federal diversity jurisdiction applied under Article III Section 2 Clause 1of the US Constitution allowing him to bring suit against these defendants in any court within the United States regardless if all parties are from different states or not .The Supreme Court agreed with this argument finding that although none of the plaintiffs resided or were domiciled in Maryland at time suit was filed ,they still had standing because they represented other parties whose interests would have been affected if judgment went against them .Therefore ,the Supreme Court ruled that federal diversity jurisdiction did apply here allowing for suits between nonresident aliens even though some may reside within same state

In M'Iver, Assignee, &c. v. Kyger et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an assignee of debt from another state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction in this matter because it involved citizens of different states and therefore fell under federal judicial power as outlined by Article III of the Constitution. However, Justice Story dissented on this point and argued that there were no constitutional grounds for denying such cases to be heard in state courts since they do not involve any questions arising out of foreign law or treaties between two nations which are exclusively within federal judicial authority. He further noted that Congress has never passed any laws prohibiting such suits from being brought before state courts and thus he believed it should remain up to each individual State's legislature to determine if their own courts can hear these types of cases or not.