Edward Hardy and Jesse Hoyt were involved in a dispute over the ownership of a slave named George. Edward Hardy claimed that he had purchased George from Jesse Hoyt, but Hoyt argued that he was only renting out the slave to Hardy for an agreed upon period of time. The case went before the Supreme Court who ultimately ruled in favor of Edward Hardy, finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove his claim as owner of George. The court determined that even though it may have been intended by both parties as a rental agreement, under Virginia law at the time any transfer or sale involving slaves must be considered an absolute conveyance unless otherwise specified in writing. Therefore, since no written contract existed between them regarding this transaction, it could not be deemed anything other than an outright purchase on behalf of Edward Hardy and thus gave him full rights to ownership over George.

In the case of Edward Hardy vs. Jesse Hoyt, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in regards to property located within that state's borders. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did exist and affirmed the decision of the lower court. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that it would be unjust for states to exercise authority over persons who were not subject to their laws; secondly, he contended that allowing states to do so would create confusion as different states could have conflicting decisions regarding similar cases involving out-of-state parties. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded that only Congress should have power over interstate controversies and thus found in favor of Mr. Hoyt due his lack of connection with Maryland where suit was brought against him by Mr. Hardy