In the case of Lessee of Daniel W. Gantly et al., Plaintiff, v. William G. and George W. Ewing, Defendants, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from an individual who had no title to land could be enforced against subsequent purchasers in good faith for value without notice of any defect in title or lien on the property at issue. The court held that such a deed could not be enforced because it did not convey any legal interest in the land; thus, those purchasing with knowledge of its invalidity were protected from liability even if they paid valuable consideration for it. Furthermore, those purchasing without knowledge were also protected as long as they acted reasonably and prudently by making inquiries into their purchase's validity before completing it - regardless if there was actual notice or not - since this would have revealed that there was no valid title conveyed by said deed

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tenant had the right to remove improvements made on leased land after their lease expired. The majority opinion held that tenants did not have such a right and must leave all improvements behind when they vacated the property. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling and argued that tenants should be allowed to take with them any improvements they had made during their tenancy. He reasoned that since these were personal investments of time and money by the tenant, it would be unjust for them to lose out on those investments simply because their lease ended. Furthermore, he noted that allowing tenants to keep what they improved could actually benefit landlords in some cases as it might encourage more people to rent properties knowing they can recoup some of their investment if need be at the end of their tenure.