In Smith Harpending, and Others v. The Minister, Elders, and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of the City of New York, appellants argued that they were entitled to a share in certain church property which had been held by their ancestors since 1696. Appellants claimed that this right was secured under an agreement made between their ancestor and the appellees' predecessor in 1731. However, appellees contended that such rights did not exist as there was no written evidence or proof for it. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against appellants on grounds that any agreement must be proven with clear evidence before being enforced by law; thus finding no basis for appellants’ claims due to lack thereof.

In Smith Harpending, and Others v. The Minister, Elders, and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of the City of New York, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed an appeal from a decision by a lower court concerning church property. He argued that it was within the power of Congress to regulate matters involving religious organizations as long as they did not interfere with their internal affairs or doctrines. Furthermore, he stated that if Congress had passed legislation on this matter then it would be binding upon all courts regardless of any state laws or constitutions to the contrary. In conclusion, Justice Story maintained his belief that there was no constitutional impediment preventing federal courts from deciding cases involving disputes between religious organizations over property rights even when those disputes were based on state law rather than federal law.