In Morgan McAfee v. Thomas C. Doremus, James Suydam, Cornelius R. Suydam and John Nixon, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by the plaintiff in error (McAfee) was valid or not. The lower court had found that it was invalid because it did not comply with certain formalities required under New York law at the time; however, on appeal to the Supreme Court this decision was reversed as they held that such formalities were unnecessary for a deed of trust to be effective and binding upon all parties involved in its execution. The court further noted that even though there may have been some irregularities in how McAfee's deed of trust had been created and executed, these could be remedied through an equitable action brought before a court of equity rather than voiding out the entire transaction altogether as had happened previously in this case. Ultimately then, this ruling established important precedent regarding what constitutes sufficient evidence for creating legally-binding deeds of trusts which still stands today despite changes over time to state laws governing real estate transactions since 1847 when this case first came before them

In Morgan McAfee v. Thomas C. Doremus, James Suydam, Cornelius R. Suydam and John Nixon, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of conveyance from an executor to a purchaser for value without notice of any prior lien or incumbrance on the property conveyed is valid against such lien or incumbrance when it appears that at the time of executing said deed there existed in favor of another person a judgment which had been docketed but not yet satisfied nor paid out of assets coming into possession by virtue thereof. The majority opinion held that under these circumstances, the purchaser took title subject to any existing liens or encumbrances upon it; however Justice Catron dissented from this decision arguing that if one purchases land with no knowledge whatsoever about its condition then they should be able to take full ownership free and clear from all prior claims regardless as long as they are paying fair market value for it at the time of purchase. He argued further that since there was no fraud involved here and both parties acted in good faith then justice would best be served by allowing Mr McAfee's claim over those who have already obtained judgments against him before he sold his property