In the case of Mathew Hobson v. The Heirs of Duncan M'Arthur, Deceased, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from an executor who had been appointed by a court in Ohio could be enforced in Kentucky. The appellant argued that since the deed was executed under authority granted by an Ohio court and accepted as valid there, it should also be recognized as valid in Kentucky. However, the appellees argued that such deeds were not enforceable outside of their state's jurisdiction and thus should not be recognized or enforced within another state's borders. After considering both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Hobson on grounds that such deeds are only binding within their own respective states and cannot extend beyond them into other jurisdictions without specific authorization from those courts.

In the case of Mathew Hobson v. The Heirs of Duncan M'Arthur, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a deed from 1803 that granted land to Mathew Hobson and his heirs was valid. In an opinion delivered by Justice McLean, it was determined that the deed in question did not grant title to any specific piece of land but rather gave Mr. Hobson a right to select certain lands within a designated area at some point in time after 1803 when he chose to exercise this right. Since no selection had been made prior to 1842, when this case came before the court, it could not be established that Mr. Hobson held legal title over any particular parcel of land and thus his claim failed on these grounds alone without considering other issues raised during oral arguments such as laches and estoppel which were deemed moot given this ruling on ownership rights under Ohio law at the time.