Isaac Larman brought a case against James Tisdale's heirs in the Supreme Court. The dispute was over whether or not Larman had title to certain land that he claimed was his, but which the Tisdales argued belonged to them. In order for Larman to prove ownership of the land, he needed to show that it had been granted by patent from Virginia prior to 1792 when Kentucky became a state and adopted its own laws regarding property rights. The court found that while there were documents showing some kind of grant from Virginia, they did not meet all of the requirements necessary for proof under Kentucky law at the time and thus could not be used as evidence in this case. As such, without any other evidence available, it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Larman owned this particular piece of land and therefore judgment went in favor of Tisdale's heirs.

In this case, the plaintiff Isaac Larman argued that he had a valid claim to certain property in Kentucky. The Supreme Court found that his claim was invalid because it did not meet the requirements of an act passed by the state legislature in 1820. Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that Larman's title should be recognized as valid under Kentucky law and common law principles of equity. He noted that there were sufficient facts presented to support Larman's position and concluded that if those facts were accepted, then they would establish his right to the land at issue. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued against applying strict rules of construction when interpreting statutes such as the one at issue here since doing so could lead to unjust results for individuals like Larman who have relied on their titles for many years without any knowledge or notice of potential defects in them.