Plumb v. Goodnow's Administratrix was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state court could not exercise jurisdiction over a case involving a federal question. The case arose when the plaintiff, Plumb, brought a suit in a state court against the defendant, Goodnow's Administratrix, for the recovery of a debt. The defendant argued that the state court did not have jurisdiction over the case because it involved a federal question. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the state court did not have jurisdiction over the case because it involved a federal question. The Court reasoned that the state court could not exercise jurisdiction over a case involving a federal question because the Constitution grants the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over such cases. The Court also held that the state court could not exercise jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiff had not exhausted all of his remedies in the federal court. The Court concluded that the state court did not have jurisdiction over the case and that the plaintiff must seek relief in the federal court.

In the case of Plumb v. Goodnow's Administratrix, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in regards to property located within that state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction, as there were no sufficient contacts between either party and the forum state for personal jurisdiction or any other basis for exercising general jurisdictional authority. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under prior decisions of the Court it was established law that states could exercise their power over persons outside its borders when they had some connection with matters within its boundaries; secondly, he noted that while neither party resided in New York State at the time of filing suit nor owned any real estate therein, both parties had been residents at one point and still retained interests in certain properties located there. Thus Justice Field concluded that due process requirements were satisfied and therefore New York State courts should be able to hear this dispute concerning property situated within their borders.