In Martin, Heir at Law and Devisee of Fairfax v. Hunter's Lessee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Virginia statute that allowed for escheat of land to the state in certain circumstances violated Article I Section 10 Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. The clause states that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. In this case, Lord Fairfax had granted a lease on his estate prior to Virginia passing its escheat statute which provided for forfeiture if not used within ten years. The court held that while it is true that some laws may be passed by states without violating Article I Section 10 Clause 3, this particular law did violate it as it impaired an existing contract between Lord Fairfax and his lessee by providing for forfeiture after only ten years when their contract specified twenty-one years before such forfeiture could occur. Therefore, they ruled in favor of Martin who was heir at law and devisee to Lord Fairfax’s estate since he inherited all rights under said contract from him upon his death including those pertaining to leases on property owned by him or her heirs or assigns thereafter.

In Martin, Heir at Law and Devisee of Fairfax v. Hunter's Lessee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Virginia statute that allowed for escheat of land titles in certain circumstances applied retroactively to lands granted before the enactment of the statute. The majority opinion held that it did not apply retroactively because such an application would be unconstitutional as it would impair vested rights without due process. However, Justice Story dissented from this opinion on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no constitutional impediment preventing retrospective legislation; secondly, he maintained that even if there were such an impediment then any doubt should be resolved in favor of state sovereignty over federal power. In conclusion Justice Story believed that since Virginia had long recognized escheats as part of its common law tradition and since Congress had never expressly forbidden them then they should remain valid under their own laws regardless of when they were enacted or when title to land was granted.