In the case of Samuel D. Harris and Others v. Jesse D. Elliott, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a dispute between citizens of different states that arose out of an agreement made in one state but performed in another. The plaintiffs argued that since they were citizens of different states, their dispute should be heard by federal courts under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution, which gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving parties from two or more states. The defendant argued that since he was not a citizen of any other state than his own and all actions related to the contract occurred within his home state's borders, it should be tried in its local court system instead. After considering both sides' arguments carefully, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Harris et al., finding that because there was diversity among parties involved and interstate commerce at issue here (the performance part), this matter fell within federal jurisdiction as outlined by Article III Section 2 Clause 1 and thus must be decided by a U.S District Court rather than any particular State court system

In the case of Samuel D. Harris and Others v. Jesse D. Elliott, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to pass legislation granting land titles to veterans who served during the War of 1812 as it was not within their power under the Constitution. He further argued that if such an act were passed, it would be unconstitutional because it would amount to an ex post facto law, which is prohibited by Article I Section 10 of the Constitution. Furthermore, he contended that even if such a law were constitutional on its face, this particular grant could not stand since there was evidence showing fraud and misrepresentation on behalf of those receiving grants from Congress for land they did not actually serve in or fight for during war time service. In conclusion, Chief Justice Taney held that Congress had no right to pass laws granting title over lands without proper authorization from state legislatures and thus any attempt at doing so should be declared void ab initio (from inception).