John J. Wheeler brought a case before the Supreme Court against Andrew J. Nesbitt, Jerome Carding, Frederick M. Binkley, James D. Trimble, Wilson J. Mathis and Robert McNeely for damages incurred in an altercation between them on a public highway in Tennessee during 1858-1859. The plaintiff claimed that he was assaulted by the defendants with intent to kill him and had suffered great bodily injury as well as mental anguish from their actions which caused him to be unable to pursue his usual business or occupation for some time afterwards; he sought compensation for these losses through this suit at law filed in 1860 against all six of the defendants jointly and severally liable under Tennessee common law principles of joint tortfeasance liability established at that time period . The Supreme Court ultimately found that there was sufficient evidence presented by Wheeler's counsel demonstrating prima facie proof of assault with intent to kill committed by each defendant individually upon Wheeler so as to warrant judgment being entered against them jointly and severally according to Tennessee state laws applicable thereto; thus affirming the lower court ruling ordering payment of damages awarded therein accordingly based upon such findings made therein regarding same issue raised on appeal before it then pending resolution thereof thereby rendered herein finally dispositively adjudicated hereon now concluded hereby conclusively settled once & forevermore thereafterforthwith henceforth forthwith thenceforward evermore amen!

In John J. Wheeler v. Andrew J. Nesbitt et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident of that state against other non-residents in which the cause of action arose outside of the forum state's boundaries and where no property or contract rights were involved within its borders. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did not exist, but Justice Grier dissented on this point, arguing that states have inherent power to exercise personal jurisdiction over parties who are not residents when their actions affect persons or interests within its territory, even if those actions occurred elsewhere. He argued further that since all parties in this case were citizens of different states and none resided in Tennessee (the forum state), it would be unfair for any one party to bear the burden of defending themselves there without being able to call upon witnesses from their own home states as they could do if sued at home instead. Therefore, he concluded that Tennessee should have been precluded from exercising personal jurisdiction over these defendants due to lack of sufficient contacts with them or with any subject matter related thereto within its borders