In Smith and Others v. Edrington, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an alleged trespass by William Edrington on land owned by Thomas Smith and others in Kentucky. The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully dispossessed of their property when Edrington took possession without their consent or legal authority to do so. The defendants countered that they were legally entitled to take possession under a deed from one John Bledsoe, who claimed title to the land through inheritance from his father-in-law, James Rayburn. After considering both sides' arguments, the court held that Bledsoe's claim was invalid because he did not have sufficient evidence of ownership over Rayburn's estate at the time he conveyed it to Edrington; thus, no valid deed existed for transferral of title between them. As such, any action taken by Edrington based upon this purported conveyance was unlawful and constituted a trespass against Smith and others’ rights as owners of said property.

In Smith and Others v. Edrington, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction in this case because it involved property within its boundaries. However, Justice Johnson wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that such an interpretation would lead to chaos and confusion as each state could claim exclusive authority over any dispute between two citizens from different states regardless of where it occurred or what laws applied. He argued instead for uniformity among all courts so that disputes between citizens of different states were decided by federal courts rather than allowing individual states to make their own decisions on matters affecting people outside their borders.