Smith v. M'Iver was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused by their slave. The plaintiff, Smith, had been injured when his horse and wagon were struck by a runaway slave owned by the defendant, M’Iver. Smith sued to recover damages from M’Iver for negligence in failing to restrain his slave properly. The court found that although slavery was illegal in many states at this time, it still existed as a legal institution under federal law and therefore individuals who owned slaves were responsible for any damage they caused while running away or otherwise acting negligently. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Smith and ordered M’Iver to pay him compensation for his injuries sustained due to the runaway slave's actions. This ruling established precedent which holds owners accountable if their slaves cause harm through negligent behavior while on their property or elsewhere within society's boundaries

In Smith v. M'Iver, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the defendant resided in yet another state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no constitutional provision preventing states from exercising their own powers; secondly, he maintained that Congress had never passed any law prohibiting such actions between citizens of different states. He concluded that if Congress intended to limit or restrict these rights then they should do so explicitly rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation. In his view, allowing each individual state court to determine its own jurisdictional limits would lead only to confusion and uncertainty for litigants who may be unaware of those limitations when filing suit across multiple jurisdictions.