In James M'Donald's Heirs, Appellants v. Freeman Smalley and Others, Appellee (1832), the Supreme Court of the United States heard an appeal from a decision made by the Circuit Court for Washington County in Maryland. The dispute concerned whether or not certain lands were subject to escheatment under Maryland law due to their owner’s death without any heirs. In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence that these lands had been granted as part of a manor estate with rights of inheritance attached, they could not be considered subject to escheatment upon their owner’s death without heirs. Therefore, it reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded it back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This case is important because it established precedent regarding how courts should interpret state laws concerning land ownership and succession rights when determining if property may be subject to escheatment upon its owner's death without any legal heirs or devisees.

In the case of James M'Donald's Heirs v. Freeman Smalley and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced despite one party having died before it could be completed. The majority opinion held that since contracts are personal in nature, they cannot survive beyond death and thus must not be enforced against an estate after its owner has passed away. However, Justice Story dissented from this ruling on the grounds that if a contract is validly made by both parties prior to death then it should still remain enforceable even after one of them dies. In his view, such contracts were binding upon both living and deceased persons alike as long as all other legal requirements had been met beforehand. Furthermore, he argued that allowing estates to avoid contractual obligations would create uncertainty in commercial transactions which could lead to economic instability for society at large.