David A. Secombe et al. v. Franklin Steele was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1857 that concerned the right of an individual to bring suit against another person for damages caused by negligence or wrongful acts, even if those damages were not immediately apparent at the time of injury and only became evident later on down the line. The court ruled in favor of Secombe and his co-plaintiffs, finding that they had indeed suffered damage due to Steele's negligent actions and thus could seek compensation from him for their losses. This ruling established an important precedent which has since been used as justification for allowing individuals to sue others who have negligently caused them harm, regardless of when those harms become apparent or manifest themselves over time.

In the case of David A. Secombe et al. v Franklin Steele, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a dispute between citizens of different states when both parties were present in that state at the time of filing suit and service was made on one party while they were still there. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did exist, but Justice Curtis dissented from this ruling. He argued that under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution, which grants federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving citizens from two or more states, only Congress could grant authority for any other court to exercise such power; since no such congressional action had been taken in this instance, he argued it would be unconstitutional for a state court to assume original jurisdiction over this matter without express authorization by Congress first being granted.