In the case of Henderson v. Poindexter's Lessee, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that allowed for an escheat of property when no heir could be found violated the Constitution. The plaintiff argued that such a law constituted an unconstitutional taking without due process or just compensation in violation of Article I, Section 10 and Amendment V. The defendant argued that it did not violate either provision because there had been no actual seizure by the government; rather, they claimed it was merely a transfer from one private party to another. Ultimately, the court sided with the defendant and held that since there had been no physical taking by any governmental entity nor any deprivation of rights or property interests on behalf of anyone involved in this case, then neither Article I nor Amendment V were applicable here and thus upheld state laws allowing for escheats as constitutional.

In the case of Henderson v. Poindexter's Lessee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a plaintiff had standing to bring an action against a defendant who held title to land under a grant from Virginia. The majority opinion found that the plaintiff did not have standing because he was not in possession of any part of the land and thus could not demonstrate sufficient interest in it. However, Justice Story dissented on this point arguing that as long as there is some legal right or claim asserted by one party against another, then they should be allowed to pursue their claims regardless if they are actually in possession of any part of the property at issue. He argued that allowing parties to assert their rights without being physically present would help ensure justice for all parties involved and prevent those with superior power from taking advantage over those less powerful due to lack of access or resources needed for litigation purposes.