This case was a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in New Jersey. The plaintiffs, Wurts and another, claimed that they had purchased the land from the state of New Jersey in 1845. The defendants, Hoagland and others, argued that the land had been granted to them by the state in 1844. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the state had no authority to grant the land to the defendants in 1844, as it had already been sold to the plaintiffs in 1845. The Court also found that the defendants had no legal right to the land, as they had not purchased it from the state. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the land and that the defendants had no claim to it.

In Wurts & Another v. Hoagland & Others, Commissioners, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it violated Article III of the Constitution which grants exclusive federal judicial power in cases where there is diversity of citizenship among parties involved. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while Congress has authority to regulate matters concerning interstate commerce under Article I Section 8 Clause 3, they do not have authority to limit or restrict any rights granted by the Constitution such as those found in Article III. He further stated that if Congress were allowed to interfere with these constitutional rights then it would be tantamount to allowing them "to amend or repeal" parts of the Constitution without going through proper channels for doing so as outlined in Amendment V.