In Gordon v. Caldcleugh et al., the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an action for trespass and ejectment brought by James Gordon against John Caldcleugh, William Smith, and others. The dispute arose from a land grant issued in 1763 to Robert Carter Nicholas that included two tracts of land located in Virginia. After Nicholas’s death, his son-in-law sold one tract to Gordon while another was sold to Caldcleugh and Smith. When both parties attempted to occupy the same tract of land at different times, they filed suit against each other claiming ownership rights over it. In its decision, the court held that since neither party had obtained legal title or possession prior to their respective purchases from Nicholas' estate; therefore both were equally entitled as tenants in common with equal right of occupancy on said lands until such time as either could obtain legal title or possession through due process under law.

In Gordon v. Caldcleugh et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties, which had been executed in Scotland and then brought to Virginia for enforcement, should be recognized by the court. The majority opinion held that since the contract was made in Scotland it could not be enforced under Virginia law because of its foreign origin. Justice Chase dissented from this decision and argued that contracts made abroad should still be enforceable if they are valid according to their place of execution and do not violate any laws or public policy of either state involved. He further noted that there is no legal principle which requires all contracts to originate within one particular jurisdiction before being enforced elsewhere; instead, he asserted that courts must look at each case individually on its merits when deciding whether a contract is valid or invalid regardless of where it originated from.