In the case of The Corporation of Washington, for the Use of M'Cue and Others v. Moses Young, a dispute arose between two parties over an unpaid debt. The plaintiff argued that they had loaned money to Young in 1818 with interest due by 1820; however, he failed to pay back either principal or interest on time. In response, Young claimed that his obligation was discharged because it was not paid within three years from when it became due as required under Maryland law at the time. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled against him and held that although Maryland's statute did provide a limitation period for debts owed to individuals residing in-state (which would have applied if this were an individual suing another), such limitations do not apply when corporations are involved since their rights are perpetual unless otherwise specified by state legislature or contract agreement between both parties.

In the case of The Corporation of Washington, for the Use of M'Cue and Others v. Moses Young, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that although the Court had jurisdiction to hear this case, it should not have done so because it was an appeal from a state court decision on matters concerning local law. He further argued that since Congress had not given federal courts authority over such cases, they should be left to state courts to decide as they saw fit. In addition, he noted that if the Supreme Court were allowed to review all decisions made by state courts regarding local laws then there would be no end to its power and scope. Finally, Marshall concluded by stating his belief that allowing appeals from state court decisions on matters involving local law could lead to dangerous consequences for both federalism and separation of powers principles enshrined in our Constitution.