In Wayman and Another v. Southard and Another, the Supreme Court of the United States considered a case involving an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants in an action on two promissory notes. The plaintiffs argued that they had been denied justice by the Circuit Court because it refused to allow them to amend their declaration after trial began. The Supreme Court held that although there was no express rule allowing amendments during trial, such amendments were allowed when necessary for substantial justice between parties litigant. In this case, however, since both parties had already presented evidence at trial before any amendment was proposed by plaintiff's counsel, it would have caused prejudice to defendant if the amendment were allowed; therefore it was properly refused by the court below.

In Wayman and Another v. Southard and Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a federal officer in order to prevent him from executing his duties under federal law. The majority opinion held that such injunctions were not permissible as they would interfere with the execution of federal laws by officers appointed by Congress. However, Justice Story dissented on this point, arguing that states have concurrent powers over certain matters which are not exclusively delegated to Congress; thus, he argued that state courts could properly exercise their power when necessary for protecting citizens' rights or enforcing public justice within their own borders. He further noted that while it is true that some cases may require exclusive action by Congress or its agents due to national interests at stake, there are other instances where both state and federal governments can act concurrently without interfering with each other's authority.