In United States v. Ellsworth, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving a dispute between two citizens of different states. The case arose when the plaintiff, Ellsworth, sued the defendant, a citizen of another state, for breach of contract. The defendant argued that the federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the dispute was between two citizens of different states. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court reasoned that the Constitution grants the federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving citizens of different states, and that the dispute between the parties was a matter of federal law. The Court also noted that the dispute was of a commercial nature, and that the federal courts had jurisdiction over such matters. The Court concluded that the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a trial on the merits. The Court also noted that the federal court had the power to enforce its judgment against the defendant, regardless of the defendant's state of residence. This case established the principle that federal courts have jurisdiction over disputes between citizens of different states.

In United States v. Ellsworth, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in a patent case. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority, as Congress had not granted any power to review decisions made by the Commissioner. Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that Congress intended for there to be judicial review when they passed legislation granting exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases to federal courts. He further noted that if appeals were denied then inventors would be deprived of their right under Article I Section 8 Clause 8 of the Constitution which grants them exclusive rights for their inventions and discoveries. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that denying appeals in these cases would violate both Congressional intent and Constitutional law; thus he disagreed with his colleagues' ruling on this matter.