In Scruggs' Executor & Others v. Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company & Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a railroad company to prevent it from constructing a bridge over a navigable river. The plaintiffs argued that the bridge would interfere with their right to navigate the river, and that the state court had the authority to issue the injunction. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the injunction. The Court reasoned that the power to regulate interstate commerce was vested in Congress, and that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the exercise of that power. The Court further held that the bridge was a necessary part of the railroad's interstate commerce operations, and that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the railroad's operations. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the injunction, and that the railroad was entitled to construct the bridge. The Court's decision established that the power to regulate interstate commerce was vested in Congress, and that state courts were not authorized to interfere with the exercise of that power.

In Scruggs' Executor & Others v. Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company & Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against a corporation chartered in another state. The majority opinion held that the federal courts had exclusive jurisdiction over such cases and that the lower court's decision should be reversed. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that it would lead to injustice and hardship for individuals who were unable to bring their claims before federal courts due to lack of resources or other reasons. He argued further that Congress did not intend for its laws on diversity jurisdiction to apply so broadly as they could potentially deprive litigants of access to justice if all actions between citizens of different states must go through federal courts instead of local ones.