In the case of James M'Cutchin and others v. James Marshall and others, a dispute arose between two parties over an estate in Pennsylvania. The appellants argued that they were entitled to the estate because it had been willed to them by their father, while the respondents claimed that they held title due to a deed from another party who was not related to either side. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the appellants, ruling that since there was no evidence of fraud or collusion on behalf of any party involved in creating or transferring ownership rights for this particular property, then under Pennsylvania law at the time, wills took precedence over deeds when determining rightful ownership.

In the case of James M'Cutchen and Others v. James Marshall and Others, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a federal marshal in order to prevent him from executing a writ of habeas corpus issued by another state court. The dissenting opinion argued that the power of issuing such injunctions rested solely with Congress, not with any individual state courts. Furthermore, it contended that allowing states to interfere in this manner would be detrimental to both federalism and comity between states as well as undermine congressional authority over matters concerning interstate relations. Ultimately, it concluded that while there may have been some merit in granting relief for those affected by the writs issued by other states’ courts, doing so through an injunction was beyond what could be allowed under existing law or precedent at the time.