In James Findlay, William Lytle, Charles Vattier, Robert Ritchie and others v. Thomas S. Hinde and Belinda his wife (1828), the Supreme Court of the United States heard a dispute between citizens of Ohio and Kentucky regarding land in Ohio that had been granted to veterans by Virginia during the Revolutionary War. The appellants argued that they were entitled to possession of this land as purchasers from those veterans or their heirs; however, appellees claimed title under a grant from Virginia made after Congress had ceded it to Ohio. The Supreme Court held that since Congress had already ceded the land before any grants could be issued by Virginia, these subsequent grants were invalidated and thus did not confer title on appellees. Therefore, appellants' claim was upheld as valid against appellee's claims based on later-issued titles from Virginia which were rendered void due to prior congressional action transferring ownership rights over said lands

In the dissenting opinion of James Findlay, William Lytle, Charles Vattier, Robert Ritchie and others vs. Thomas S. Hinde and Belinda his wife (1828), Justice Story argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of Ohio law which allowed for an appeal to be brought in cases involving real estate located outside of the state. He contended that this interpretation would lead to absurd results as it would allow citizens from other states to bring appeals into Ohio courts without any regard for their own laws or jurisdiction over such matters. Furthermore, he noted that if this interpretation were correct then it could potentially open up all kinds of disputes between different states regarding who has authority over certain lands within their borders; something which is not supported by either federal or state constitutions. Ultimately Justice Story concluded that since there was no clear precedent set forth in either federal or state law allowing for such appeals then they should not be granted under these circumstances and thus reversed the lower court's ruling against Appellees Thomas S. Hinde and Belinda his wife