This Supreme Court case involved J. M. Mattingly and Sarah Ann, his wife, as appellants against John H. Boyd, administrator of David H. Boyd who had passed away. The dispute was over a tract of land in Kentucky that the Boyds claimed they owned but the Mattinglys argued should be theirs due to an agreement between them and David H. Boyd prior to his death which stated that he would deed it to them if certain conditions were met by both parties before his death occurred; however these conditions were not fulfilled so the title remained with him at the time of his passing and then went on to John H., as administrator for David's estate after he died. The court ruled in favor of John H., stating that since there was no evidence presented proving otherwise, it could only assume that all necessary steps required for transferring ownership had not been taken before David's death - thus making any agreement between him and J & S Ann nullified upon their failure to fulfill its terms accordingly or within a reasonable amount of time afterwards

In the case of J. M. Mattingly and Sarah Ann his wife v John H. Boyd, Administrator of David H. Boyd, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed executed by David H. Boyd in 1845 was valid or not under Kentucky law at that time. The majority opinion held that it was invalid because it did not meet certain requirements set out in the statute governing such deeds; however, Justice Grier dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were no statutory provisions requiring any particular form for such a deed; secondly, he noted that even if there had been such provisions they would have been superseded by an act passed after the execution of the deed which removed all formalities from conveyances made between husband and wife as long as they were acknowledged before two witnesses and recorded within one year afterwards - both conditions having been met here with respect to this particular deed. Therefore Justice Grier concluded that since these conditions had been satisfied then regardless of any other technical defects present in its form or content it should be considered valid according to Kentucky law at the time when it was executed