In Macker's Heirs v. Thomas, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state court had no jurisdiction over a case involving land located in another state. The dispute arose when William Mackers died and left his estate to his heirs, who were all residents of Virginia. His will specified that certain lands should be sold and the proceeds divided among them. However, some of these lands were located in North Carolina and could not be sold without permission from its legislature or courts. The heirs sued John Thomas for failing to obtain such permission before selling the land in question; however, since neither party was a resident of North Carolina at the time, it was determined that only Virginia courts had jurisdiction over this matter as they alone could decide on matters concerning property within their own borders. Thus, despite being an interstate dispute between two parties living outside both states involved with respect to property situated within those states’ boundaries – which would normally require federal intervention – it was ultimately decided by SCOTUS that this particular case fell under exclusive control of one state’s laws due to its unique circumstances

In Macker's Heirs v. Thomas, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of land in Kentucky was valid even though it had not been recorded according to state law. The majority opinion held that the deed was invalid and could not be enforced because it had not been properly recorded as required by state law. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision and argued that although recording deeds is important for protecting property rights, there should also be an exception when one party has already acted on their belief that they have acquired title to the land through a valid contract with another party. In this case, he argued that since Thomas had taken possession of the land and made improvements upon it based on his understanding of having purchased it from Mackers' heirs, he should still be able to enforce his claim against them despite failing to record the deed as required by state law.