In James Conolly and Others, Appellants vs. Richard Taylor and Others, Appellees, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by an individual in favor of another could be enforced against the assignee of that individual's estate after his death. The appellants argued that since there had been no delivery or acceptance of the deed during the lifetime of its original grantor, it should not be enforceable against them as assignees. The appellees countered that although there had been no delivery or acceptance while he was alive, they were still entitled to have it enforced because it had been duly acknowledged before two witnesses who attested to its validity. After considering both sides' arguments carefully, the court ruled in favor of the appellees on grounds that even though there had been no actual delivery or acceptance during his lifetime due to his death prior thereto; nevertheless such acknowledgment before two witnesses constituted sufficient evidence for enforcement thereof against those claiming under him as assignees.

In James Conolly and Others, Appellants vs. Richard Taylor and Others, Appellees, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another in a dispute concerning land located in the latter. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did not exist because it would be contrary to the Constitution's provision for full faith and credit among states. Justice Thompson dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had granted authority to state courts to hear cases between citizens of different states; secondly, he maintained that if Congress had not done so then there was no constitutional impediment preventing them from doing so as long as they respected each other's laws. He concluded by stating his belief that "the power which has been exercised is within the spirit of our constitution."