In William Caldwell, Isaac Caldwell and Samuel Brents v. Sarah and George Carrington's Heirs, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of conveyance executed by two individuals in 1802 conveyed title to land located in Tennessee. The appellants argued that they had acquired title from the original grantors through an unrecorded deed of conveyance which was not registered until after their death. On the other hand, appellees contended that since no record existed prior to their deaths, there could be no valid claim on the property as it would have been void under Tennessee law at that time. After considering both sides' arguments, the court held that while there may have been some evidence indicating an intent to transfer title between parties involved in this case before 1802 when such transfers were prohibited by state law; nevertheless due to lack of proof or any reliable records showing such a transaction occurred prior thereto; therefore judgment must go for appellees who are rightful owners of said lands according to current laws governing real estate transactions within Tennessee State boundaries.

The dissenting opinion in the case of William Caldwell, Isaac Caldwell and Samuel Brents v. Sarah and George Carrington's Heirs was written by Justice McLean. In his dissent, he argued that the majority had erred in their decision to uphold a Virginia statute which allowed for escheatment of land from those who were not citizens or residents of Virginia at the time it was granted. According to Justice McLean, this statute violated Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 of the United States Constitution which states that "the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities" regardless if they are citizens or non-citizens living within another state's borders. Furthermore, he argued that such an act would lead to unequal treatment between different classes based on citizenship status as well as create a situation where property could be taken away without due process being provided first. As such, Justice McLean concluded that while there may have been some valid reasons for passing such legislation in Virginia it should still be struck down since it violates fundamental rights enshrined in our nation’s constitution.