In Semmes v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving a contract dispute between a private party and the United States. The dispute arose out of a contract between the United States and a private party, Semmes, for the construction of a lighthouse. The contract provided that any disputes arising out of the contract would be heard in the federal court. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court reasoned that the contract was made with the United States, and thus the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court also noted that the contract was made in the District of Columbia, which was within the jurisdiction of the federal court. The Court also held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was made in good faith and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to public policy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case and that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court also noted that the contract was made in good faith and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract.

In Semmes v. United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in regard to an application for patent rights. The majority opinion held that such appeals were not within the scope of federal courts' jurisdiction and thus could not be heard by them. Justice Field dissented, arguing that Congress had clearly intended for appeals from decisions made by the Commissioner to be heard in federal courts as part of their general appellate authority over all cases arising under laws passed pursuant to Article I Section 8 Clause 8 (the Patent Clause) of the Constitution. He further argued that since this clause grants Congress exclusive power over patents, it would make little sense if they did not also have concurrent power with state courts when it came time for appeals on matters related thereto. Thus he concluded that there should be no doubt as to whether or not these types of appeals are within federal court's jurisdiction and should therefore be allowed accordingly.