Pindell v. Mullikin et al. was a case that came before the United States Supreme Court in 1861, concerning the rights of African Americans to own property and receive compensation for it when taken by eminent domain. The plaintiff, Pindell, owned two lots of land in Washington D.C., which had been seized by the defendants under an act of Congress authorizing them to take private property for public use without providing any compensation or due process to those affected by such action. The court found that Pindell's right as a citizen was violated because he did not receive just compensation nor due process prior to his land being taken from him; thus ruling in favor of Pindell and ordering payment for damages suffered as well as costs incurred during litigation proceedings against the defendants. This decision established precedent regarding citizens' rights with respect to their property being taken through eminent domain and set forth guidelines on how they should be compensated if this were ever done again without proper legal authority or procedure followed beforehand

In Pindell v. Mullikin et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against citizens of another. The majority opinion held that it did not, as the Constitution only granted federal courts such authority and no act of Congress had extended this power to state courts. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that states should be allowed to exercise their own judicial powers in cases involving citizens from other states unless expressly prohibited by Congress or the Constitution itself. He further argued that allowing states to adjudicate these matters would help ensure justice for all parties involved and prevent unnecessary delays due to appeals between different jurisdictions. Ultimately, he concluded that there was nothing in either document preventing states from exercising jurisdiction over suits between its own citizens and those living elsewhere in America; thus, he believed the lower court's ruling should stand.