In William Peirsoll and Others, Appellants v. James Elliott and Others, Appellees, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning an 1817 contract between two parties involving land in Kentucky. The appellants argued that they had been wrongfully evicted from their property by appellees who claimed to have purchased it at a sheriff’s sale for unpaid taxes. The appellants asserted that there was no legal basis for such eviction since they had not received proper notice of any tax delinquency or auction proceedings prior to being removed from their land. In its decision, the court found in favor of the appellees on grounds that although due process may have been violated with respect to notification requirements, this did not invalidate the title acquired through purchase at a public sale conducted under state law authority. Thus, despite having suffered an injustice as far as lack of notice was concerned, appellants were unable to reclaim possession of their property because it had already passed into other hands via lawful means according to state statute regulations governing taxation procedures and sales thereof when delinquent taxes remain unpaid by owners/occupiers

In William Peirsoll and Others v. James Elliott and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another in which the amount in controversy exceeded $500. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction, but Justice McLean dissented on the grounds that this case fell within the scope of diversity jurisdiction established by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. He argued that since Congress had not limited or restricted diversity jurisdiction as provided for under Article III, then states should be allowed to exercise their own authority when deciding cases involving parties from different states with amounts exceeding $500. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress intended to limit or restrict such matters they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to individual states' discretion.