In Duncan McArthur's Heirs, Complainants v. Walter Dun's Heirs, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a deed from one party to another should be considered valid even though it had not been recorded in accordance with state law. The court held that although recording statutes are important and must be followed when possible, they do not always have to be strictly adhered to for a deed or other instrument of conveyance between two parties to remain binding and enforceable. In this case, since there were no disputes as to who owned what land prior to the execution of the deed in question and both parties acted in good faith throughout their dealings with each other, it was determined that despite its failure to comply with state recording laws, the deed should still stand as legally binding on all involved.

In Duncan McArthur's Heirs, Complainants v. Walter Dun's Heirs, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a deed from an ancestor of both parties conveyed title to land in dispute between them. The majority opinion held that it did not; however, Justice Daniel dissented and argued that the deed should be enforced as written. According to him, there was no ambiguity in its language and thus no need for interpretation or construction by a court. Furthermore, he noted that if any uncertainty existed regarding its meaning then it should have been resolved through parol evidence rather than disregarded altogether as had been done by the majority opinion. In conclusion, Justice Daniel believed that since there were no legal grounds on which to reject this document outright then it must be given effect according to its plain terms so as not to violate established principles of law and justice.