United States v. Allsbury was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment was not signed by the grand jury foreman. The case involved a man named Allsbury who was indicted for the crime of counterfeiting. The indictment was not signed by the grand jury foreman, and Allsbury argued that this meant he could not be convicted of the crime. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Allsbury, holding that the indictment was invalid and that he could not be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the grand jury foreman's signature was necessary to validate the indictment, and that without it, the indictment was invalid and could not be used to convict Allsbury. The Court also noted that the grand jury foreman's signature was a safeguard against the abuse of the grand jury system, and that without it, the grand jury system would be open to abuse. The ruling in United States v. Allsbury established the precedent that an indictment must be signed by the grand jury foreman in order to be valid and used to convict a defendant. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still used today to ensure that the grand jury system is not abused.

In United States v. Allsbury, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged violation of state law. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had given federal courts exclusive authority to hear cases arising under state laws when they involved matters of national importance or affected citizens in multiple states. He argued that since this particular case concerned violations of both state and federal laws regarding counterfeiting currency, it should be heard by a federal court as it fell within its purview according to Congressional intent. Furthermore, he noted that allowing only one forum for adjudication would lead to unequal protection under the law for those who were accused of violating both state and federal statutes simultaneously.