Jane A. Coy, in her own right and as guardian of Lucy, Benjamin, Mary, Amelia and Mahitable Coy (her minor children) brought a case against Charles Mason to the US Supreme Court. Jane claimed that she had purchased land from Mason but he refused to give her title for it despite having received payment in full. The court found that Jane was entitled to the land because there was sufficient evidence showing that she had paid for it according to their agreement; however they also ruled that since no deed or other document existed proving ownership of the property by either party at this time then neither could claim legal possession until such documents were produced. This ruling meant both parties would have an equal chance of obtaining title if they could produce proof first - thus setting a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over real estate transactions without proper documentation.

In the case of Jane A. Coy v. Charles Mason, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed given by an Indian tribe to a non-Indian was valid under federal law. The majority opinion held that it was not, as such deeds were prohibited by federal statutes and treaties with Native American tribes at the time. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there had been no clear statement in any statute or treaty prohibiting such transactions; secondly, he contended that even if there had been such prohibitions in place they would be unconstitutional because they violated both due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. He concluded his dissent with a call for Congress to pass legislation explicitly addressing these issues so as to avoid future confusion over similar cases involving Native Americans' land rights