In Sewall v. Haymaker, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving a dispute between two citizens of different states. The plaintiff, Sewall, was a citizen of Massachusetts and the defendant, Haymaker, was a citizen of New York. Sewall had brought a suit against Haymaker in a Massachusetts court, alleging that Haymaker had wrongfully taken possession of certain property belonging to Sewall. Haymaker argued that the Massachusetts court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because he was a citizen of New York. The Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts court did have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court reasoned that the Constitution of the United States grants the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, and that this power includes the power to regulate disputes between citizens of different states. The Court further held that the Constitution does not require that such disputes be heard in the state where the defendant resides, and that the Massachusetts court had the authority to hear the case. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts court had jurisdiction to hear the case between Sewall and Haymaker, and that the Constitution did not require that the case be heard in the state where the defendant resided.

In Sewall v. Haymaker, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction and affirmed its decision. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, only federal courts could hear cases between citizens of different states. He argued that allowing state courts to do so would create confusion in enforcing contracts across multiple jurisdictions and lead to unequal treatment for litigants depending on which forum they chose or were forced into by their adversary. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had not given any indication it intended for such matters to be heard in state courts rather than federal ones as required by Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution.