This U.S. Supreme Court case involved the Agricultural Bank of Mississippi and other plaintiffs, who were in error, versus Charles Rice and Mary his wife, as well as Martha Phipps, defendants. The dispute was over a tract of land that had been sold to Rice by Phipps with a mortgage given to secure payment for it; however, when he failed to pay off the debt on time according to their agreement, the bank sought foreclosure proceedings against him. The court ruled in favor of the bank because they found that there was sufficient evidence presented showing that Rice had not paid off his debt within the agreed-upon timeframe and thus did not have any legal right or title to keep possession of said property anymore. This ruling set an important precedent regarding mortgages and foreclosures which is still relevant today - if someone fails to meet their obligations under such agreements then they can be legally removed from ownership without further recourse available for them.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the state court had no jurisdiction over a dispute between citizens of different states. He reasoned that since Mississippi was not authorized to exercise judicial power in such matters, it could not grant relief to either party and thus should have dismissed the suit. Furthermore, he noted that if one state were allowed to adjudicate disputes between two other states' citizens then there would be no uniformity or consistency among judgments from different courts on similar cases. Therefore, according to Justice McLean's dissent, any judgment rendered by a state court in such an instance would be void and unenforceable under federal law.