In Martin A. Lea, Monroe Rabetaille, and Charles G. Langdon v Enoch S. Kelly, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning an appeal from a decision made by the Circuit Court for Louisiana in 1841. The appellants argued that they had been wrongfully denied their right to possess certain lands located in Louisiana due to an alleged breach of contract between them and appellee Enoch S. Kelly regarding said lands; however, this argument was rejected by both lower courts as well as the Supreme Court who held that there was no evidence presented which proved any such agreement existed or had been breached by either party involved in this dispute over land ownership rights. Ultimately, it was ruled that since no valid contract could be proven between these two parties then neither side could claim legal possession of these disputed lands and thus each must bear their own costs incurred during litigation proceedings on this matter before all three courts involved with hearing this case at various stages throughout its duration

In Martin A. Lea, Monroe Rabetaille, and Charles G. Langdon v Enoch S. Kelly (1841), 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 which the amount in controversy exceeded $500 but did not exceed $2,000. The majority opinion held that such actions were within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no constitutional basis for denying states their right to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over cases involving amounts between $500 and $2,000; secondly he contended that even if Congress had intended to limit state court authority in this regard it would have been unconstitutional as it would be an infringement upon states' rights under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. In conclusion Justice McLean argued that since Congress had not acted on this issue then it should remain within the purview of individual states to determine how they wished to proceed with respect to these types of cases.