In the case of Henry Beard, William A. Beard, Lewis Hawkins and Mary his wife v. John Rowan, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from Hawkins to Rowan was valid. The Beards argued that it should be declared void because they had not been given proper notice as required by Kentucky law at the time of its execution in 1826. The court found that while there had indeed been no formal notice provided to them prior to the execution of said deed, their rights were adequately protected since they were aware of its existence and could have taken action if necessary before it became final in 1830 when it was recorded with the county clerk's office. Furthermore, due to their failure to act within this four year period after being made aware of said deed’s existence, any objections raised by them afterwards would be considered untimely and thus invalidated under Kentucky law at that time; therefore upholding validity for said deed between Hawkins and Rowan

In the case of Henry Beard, William A. Beard, Lewis Hawkins and Mary his wife v. John Rowan, the dissenting opinion was that the court should have found in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim for a right to possess land they had purchased from an Indian tribe. The dissent argued that since Kentucky law recognized Indian title to land within its borders at the time of purchase by these individuals, it would be unjust not to recognize their rights as purchasers under those laws. Furthermore, even if there were some uncertainty about whether or not Indians could legally convey such lands at all times prior to statehood (which is what this dispute centered around), it seemed clear that when Kentucky became a state in 1792 it adopted existing titles which included those held by Indians and thus any purchases made before then should still be valid today. In conclusion, while recognizing that this may set a precedent for other similar cases involving disputed Indian titles going forward; justice demands recognition of these particular claims due to long-standing legal precedents already established in Kentucky's history regarding such matters.