Pendleton and Webb v. Wambersie et al. was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1807 that dealt with the issue of whether or not a state court had jurisdiction to hear an action brought against non-residents who were citizens of another state. The plaintiffs, Pendleton and Webb, argued that they should be allowed to sue Wambersie et al., who resided in South Carolina but were citizens of Georgia, in their home state's courts because it would be more convenient for them than having to travel across states lines to bring suit against them. The defendants countered that since they did not reside within South Carolina's borders, its courts lacked jurisdiction over them and thus could not hear the case. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that while it may have been inconvenient for Pendleton and Webb to travel out of their own state into another one just so they could file suit against these individuals from Georgia; nevertheless this inconvenience was outweighed by considerations such as comity between states which required respect for each other’s laws even when those laws conflicted with one’s own interests or convenience. Thus ultimately it was determined that South Carolina did indeed lack jurisdiction over these particular defendants due solely on account of their citizenship being outside its boundaries rather than any other factor such as residence status within said boundaries at time lawsuit filed

In Pendleton and Webb v. Wambersie et al., 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 such actions could only be heard in federal courts, while Justice Chase dissented on the grounds that states should have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts for cases involving more than $500. He argued that Congress did not intend to deprive states of their power to hear these types of cases when it passed laws granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts, as this would be unconstitutional and contrary to public policy. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress intended for all such cases involving more than $500 to go exclusively through federal channels then they would have explicitly stated so instead of leaving it open-ended as they did with other statutes concerning diversity suits or admiralty matters. Therefore, Justice Chase concluded that since there was no clear indication from Congress otherwise, states should retain concurrent jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens from different states where the amount exceeds $500.