Humphrey Marshall and his wife brought a case against James Currie in the Supreme Court. The Marshalls claimed that Currie had wrongfully taken possession of their land, which was located in Kentucky. They argued that they were entitled to the property because it had been granted to them by an act of Congress from 1792. In response, Currie contended that he held title to the land due to a prior grant issued by Virginia before Kentucky became a state. After considering both sides’ arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Humphrey Marshall and his wife on grounds that federal law superseded any conflicting state laws or grants regarding ownership rights over public lands within newly formed states like Kentucky.

In Humphrey Marshall and Wife v. James Currie, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a deed of conveyance from Marshall to Currie was valid. The majority opinion held that the deed was not valid because it lacked consideration and did not contain an adequate description of the property conveyed. However, Justice William Johnson dissented on this point, arguing that there were sufficient facts in evidence for a jury to find that consideration had been given for the deed and thus make it binding upon both parties. He further argued that even if no consideration had been given, equity would require recognition of such deeds when they are made with good faith intentions by both parties involved in order to prevent fraud or injustice between them.