In the case of Matthew St Clair Clarke v. Conrad Kownslar, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a dispute between two citizens from different states. The plaintiff in error, Mr. Clarke, argued that he had been wrongfully evicted from his property by Mr. Kownslar and sought damages for this action under an act of Congress passed in 1793 which gave federal courts jurisdiction over such cases involving citizens from different states (diversity jurisdiction). However, the defendant argued that diversity jurisdiction did not apply because both parties were residents of Maryland at the time when suit was brought against him and therefore no cause of action existed under this law as it only applied to disputes between citizens residing in different states. In its decision on this matter, the Supreme Court held that diversity jurisdiction does indeed exist where one party is a citizen or resident of another state than that wherein suit is brought even if both parties are domiciled within same state at time suit is commenced; thus affirming Mr Clarke's right to bring his claim before a federal court and granting him relief for wrongful eviction suffered at hands of defendant.

In the case of Matthew St Clair Clarke v. Conrad Kownslar, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed from an individual to himself and another should be considered valid under Maryland law. The majority opinion held that such a deed was not valid because it did not meet all of the requirements for validity set forth in state law; however, Justice McLean dissented on this point. He argued that while there were certain formalities required by state law for deeds to be legally binding, those formalities had been met in this instance and thus the deed should have been found valid. Furthermore, he noted that if courts refused to recognize such self-deeds as being legally binding then individuals would no longer have any incentive or ability to transfer property among themselves without involving third parties who could take advantage of them through fraud or other means. As such, Justice McLean concluded that despite its unorthodox nature, this particular self-deed should be recognized as legally binding under Maryland law due to its compliance with applicable legal requirements and out of respect for private property rights more generally.