In Ross and Morrison v. Reed, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiffs, Ross and Morrison, had entered into a contract with defendant Reed to purchase land in Kentucky for $2,000. After paying half of the agreed-upon price but before receiving title to the property from Reed, they learned that he had already sold it to another party for more money. They then sued him for damages resulting from his breach of their agreement. In its ruling on this case, the court held that when one party breaches a contract by selling or transferring rights under it without first obtaining consent from all other parties involved in said agreement - as was done here - then any subsequent purchaser is not entitled to those rights either; thus making them liable for damages caused by such breach of contract.

In Ross and Morrison v. Reed, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by two citizens of Georgia against another citizen of South Carolina. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority to hear cases between citizens from different states. Justice Johnson dissented, arguing that under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, which grants federal courts original jurisdiction in certain types of cases involving diversity among parties from different states, Congress could grant concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction to state courts as well. He argued further that since no law expressly prohibited such a grant in this case, then there was nothing preventing the Georgia court from exercising its power over this dispute between citizens from different states.