In the case of Swann and Others v. Clark and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed conveying land in North Carolina had been validly executed. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to possession of the property because their ancestor had purchased it from an Indian tribe before statehood, while the defendants claimed that they held title due to a later conveyance by another member of the tribe. After examining evidence presented by both sides, including testimony from witnesses who had witnessed both deeds being signed, as well as other documents related to each transaction, the court concluded that there was sufficient proof for either party's claim but ultimately ruled in favor of plaintiff’s argument since their deed predated statehood and thus took precedence over any subsequent claims made on behalf of defendant’s deed. This ruling established important precedent regarding how courts should interpret transactions involving Native American tribes prior to statehood.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Swann & Others v. Clark & Others, arguing that the majority's decision was an unwarranted extension of federal power over state matters. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law allowing for suits against states and their officers in federal courts, as it would be a violation of the Eleventh Amendment which prohibits such lawsuits from being brought against them without their consent. Furthermore, he noted that even if Congress did have this power under Article III of the Constitution, they had not exercised it here by explicitly authorizing such suits. As such, Justice Field concluded that any attempt to bring suit against a state or its officers must first receive approval from both houses of Congress before proceeding further in court.