In Darby's Lessee v. Mayer and Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a patent issued by Congress for land in Kentucky could be enforced against an individual who had purchased it from another party without knowledge of the patent. The court held that such a purchase did not defeat or impair any right granted by Congress under its power to issue patents, and thus affirmed the validity of the original grantee's title. In doing so, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that "the act which conveys one man’s property cannot affect another man’s rights." This decision established important precedent regarding Congressional authority over public lands and private property rights within them.

In Darby's Lessee v. Mayer and Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a patent issued by Congress to an individual for land in Kentucky could be transferred or assigned to another person. The majority opinion held that such transfers were valid under the law, while Justice Story wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that they should not be allowed. He argued that patents are personal property rights granted by Congress and can only be used by their original owners; allowing them to transfer these rights would undermine congressional authority over public lands as well as the sanctity of contracts between individuals. Furthermore, he noted that if this practice were allowed it would create confusion about who actually owned certain pieces of land since there is no way of knowing how many times those patents may have been transferred or assigned before reaching its current owner.