In the case of William C. Reddall v. William H. Bryan, Alfred L. Rives, William H. Piles, John Cameron, James Paine, Charles Hutchinson and John Moore (Reddall v Bryan), the plaintiff in error claimed that he had been wrongfully ejected from a piece of land by the defendants who were claiming it as their own property under an invalid deed which they had obtained through fraud and misrepresentation from another party who was not legally authorized to convey it away in such manner. The Supreme Court held that since there was no valid title to be conveyed by this third-party seller then any claim made on behalf of the defendants must fail due to lack of legal authority for them to possess or use said land; thus affirming Mr Reddall’s right as rightful owner over his property without interference from others seeking wrongful possession thereof based upon false claims or titles acquired through fraudulent means or otherwise illegal activity .

In the dissenting opinion of William C. Reddall v. William H. Bryan, Alfred L. Rives, William H. Piles, John Cameron, James Paine, Charles Hutchinson and John Moore case before the US Supreme Court in 1860 Justice Curtis argued that a state court had no jurisdiction to try an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another state when it was based on a contract made in another state and to be performed there as well; instead such cases should be tried in federal courts under diversity jurisdiction established by Congress pursuant to Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution which grants original jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more states or their citizens where they are parties from different states . He further argued that if this principle were not upheld then any citizen could bring suit against any other citizen from another state in his own home court regardless of whether he had been wronged or not thus creating chaos and confusion for litigants who would have no way to know what laws applied nor which court had authority over them since each individual's rights would depend upon where he happened to reside at any given time rather than being consistent across all jurisdictions as intended by our founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution .