In the case of Charles McMicken v. Franklin Perin, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed executed in 1802 by William McMicken conveyed title to certain lands in Kentucky. The appellant argued that he had inherited these lands from his father and that they were not included in the deed. The appellee contended that since William's name appeared on the deed, it should be considered valid and binding upon all parties involved. After reviewing both sides' arguments, as well as relevant statutes and precedents, the court determined that there was no evidence to support either party's claim of ownership over the disputed land; thus, neither party could establish their right to possession or title of said property. As such, judgment was rendered for neither side and each retained their respective rights under existing law at time of suit commencement.

In Charles McMicken v. Franklin Perin, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of conveyance from an individual in Kentucky to another individual in Ohio was valid under the laws of both states. The majority opinion held that it was not valid because it violated certain provisions of Kentucky law and thus could not be enforced by either state. However, Justice McLean dissented on this point, arguing that since there were no objections raised at the time when the deed was executed and delivered, then its validity should be upheld regardless of any violations with respect to Kentucky's laws. He further argued that if such a violation did exist then it should have been brought up before or during execution rather than after as had occurred here. Therefore he concluded that since no objection had been made prior to delivery and acceptance by both parties involved in this case, then they should be allowed to enforce their agreement according to its terms without interference from either state government.