In Matson v. Hord, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an appeal from a decision by the Circuit Court for Maryland. The dispute was between two parties over ownership of land in Baltimore County, Maryland that had been granted to one party by deed and then sold to another without his knowledge or consent. The court held that while it is true that title may be acquired through adverse possession, such acquisition must be done with actual notice and intent on behalf of both parties involved in order for it to be valid. In this case, since there was no evidence presented showing either party's intention or knowledge regarding the transfer of title from one party to another, the court ruled against granting any relief based on adverse possession claims made by either side.

In Matson v. Hord, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an action brought by a citizen of another state against a resident of the forum state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority and reversed the judgment of the lower court. Justice Story dissented from this decision, arguing that states should be able to exercise their own laws in matters concerning citizens within their borders regardless of where those citizens are originally from. He further argued that if Congress wanted to limit or restrict this power then they could do so through legislation rather than judicial interpretation. In conclusion, he believed that allowing states to exercise jurisdiction over non-residents would promote justice and fairness while also protecting individuals' rights under federal law.