In Thomas Boon's Heirs, Complainants v. William Chiles et al., Defendants, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a deed executed by Thomas Boon in 1798 constituted a valid conveyance of land located in Kentucky. The complainants argued that under Kentucky law at the time, an individual could not convey title to land without first obtaining permission from their spouse or other family members who had an interest in it. The defendants countered that since no such permission was obtained prior to executing the deed and since there were no surviving heirs when it was recorded, they should be considered rightful owners of the property. After considering both sides' arguments and reviewing relevant case law from both state and federal courts, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that while Kentucky did indeed have laws requiring spousal consent for certain types of transfers involving real estate during this period, those laws did not apply retroactively so as to invalidate deeds already executed before they went into effect. As such he ruled in favor of the defendants and held them as rightful owners over any claims made by Boon's heirs regarding ownership rights over said property.

In Thomas Boon's Heirs, Complainants v. William Chiles et al., Defendants, the dissenting opinion argued that the court should have allowed a jury trial to determine whether or not there was an implied trust between Thomas Boon and his heirs. The majority of justices held that no such trust existed because it had not been proven in writing by clear and convincing evidence. However, Justice Baldwin dissented from this ruling on the grounds that written proof is not always necessary to establish a trust relationship; sometimes verbal agreements are sufficient for establishing trusts as well. Furthermore, he argued that if there was any doubt about whether or not an implied trust existed between Thomas Boon and his heirs then it should be left up to a jury trial rather than being decided solely by judges without hearing testimony from witnesses who could provide more information about what happened during their interactions with each other before Mr. Boon died intestate (without leaving a will).