In the case of Luke Tiernan, David Williamson Jr., and Charles Tiernan vs. James Jackson, the plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to a portion of land in Kentucky which had been granted to them by an act of Congress in 1820. The defendant argued that he was also entitled to this same piece of property due to his own claim from 1790. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant on grounds that his claim predated any other claims made for the land and thus gave him superior rights over all others who may have claimed it afterwards. This decision established precedent for future cases involving conflicting claims between two parties where one party has a prior right or title over another's more recent claim.

In the case of Luke Tiernan, David Williamson Jr., and Charles Tiernan vs. James Jackson, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written. The majority opinion held that contracts could be modified or amended if both parties agreed to do so; however, the dissent argued that such an interpretation would lead to uncertainty in contractual obligations and undermine public confidence in private agreements. Furthermore, it was argued that any modification must be made with clear language indicating intent by both parties for such a change. In this particular case, there were no indications from either party of any desire to modify their agreement beyond what had been originally stated in writing; thus, enforcing the original terms of the contract should have been upheld according to common law principles established at the time.