In the case of James D. Porter et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Bushrod W. Foley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against a citizen of another state who resided within the first's boundaries but held no property there and did not reside there for any length of time. The plaintiffs argued that since they were citizens of Illinois and their defendant was also a citizen residing in Illinois at the time suit was filed, then it followed that under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 (the diversity clause) they should be allowed to sue him in federal court rather than having to bring their claim before an Illinois State Court as he requested. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and ruled that because Mr Foley had been living outside his home state when suit was initiated he could not be considered a resident or inhabitant thereof; thus making it impossible for him to invoke federal jurisdiction on grounds provided by Article III Section 2 Clause 1 which requires both parties involved must have different citizenship status from each other’s states for such protection under Federal law can apply . As such, they concluded that only an appropriate State court would have proper authority over this matter due its lack of meeting requirements necessary for invoking federal jurisdiction

In the case of James D. Porter et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Bushrod W. Foley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against another citizen from a different state when both parties were present in that other state at the time suit was filed and served upon them there. The majority opinion held that such suits could not be maintained because it would violate Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution which states "The judicial Power shall extend to Controversies between Citizens of different States". However, Justice Catron dissented on this point arguing that since all parties involved were physically present within the same State at all times during litigation then no constitutional violation occurred as they did not bring any controversy between two separate states into play; rather they merely sought relief for damages suffered while both parties were located within one particular State's borders and thus should have been allowed to proceed with their suit before its courts without interference from federal authority or law.