John J. Jenkins and others appealed a case to the US Supreme Court against Sarah M. Pye and Edward Arell Pye, two infants represented by their father James B. Pye as next friend. The appellants argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of certain lands in Virginia due to an act passed by the state legislature which allowed for escheatment of land titles from those who were unable to prove ownership within three years after passage of the act. The appellees countered that this was not applicable in their situation since they had inherited the land before passage of said act, thus making it exempt from its provisions; furthermore, they argued that even if it did apply, then there should be no forfeiture since sufficient proof existed demonstrating their right to title prior to expiration date set forth by law. After careful consideration, the court ruled in favor of appellees on both counts and held that neither party could claim any rights or interests over disputed lands based on existing evidence presented at trial

In the case of John J. Jenkins and others v. Sarah M. Pye and Edward Arell Pye, dissenting Justice McLean argued that the court should have reversed the decision of the lower court because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a deed from 1819 which granted certain rights to Jenkins' predecessors in title. He believed that under Virginia law, these rights were not extinguished by subsequent conveyances or acts between other parties, as had been held by both courts below; instead they remained vested with Jenkins until he chose to exercise them or transfer them away himself. Furthermore, Justice McLean noted that even if there had been some ambiguity in interpreting this deed due to its language being "inartificially expressed," then any doubts should be resolved in favor of those who purchased land relying upon such deeds rather than against them as was done here.