In James Erwin's Lessee v. James Dundas et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide who had title to a tract of land in Kentucky that had been granted by Virginia prior to its cession of the area to the United States. The plaintiff, Erwin, argued that he held legal title as lessee from one William Christian, while defendants Dundas and others claimed they were entitled under a grant from Virginia. The court found for Erwin on two grounds: firstly, because his claim was based on an earlier grant than those asserted by the defendants; secondly, because it determined that any grants made after cession became void due to their incompatibility with federal law. This decision established important precedents regarding property rights in areas formerly belonging to states but now part of the United States.

In James Erwin's Lessee v. James Dundas et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed of trust created by an individual in 1817, which granted certain rights to another party, could be enforced against that same individual after he had been declared bankrupt and his estate sold off. The majority opinion held that the deed of trust was valid and enforceable despite the bankruptcy proceedings; however, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling. He argued that since the debtor had no control over his property at the time of bankruptcy proceedings, it would be unjust for him to have to pay on any debts or obligations incurred prior to those proceedings. Furthermore, Justice McLean noted that if such a debt were allowed to stand then creditors would have too much power over individuals who are already facing financial hardship due to their inability or unwillingness to pay their debts. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that allowing such a debt would not only be unfair but also contrary both public policy and justice itself as it gives creditors more power than they should rightfully possess under these circumstances.