In ORR v. HODGSON ET UX. et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was tasked with deciding whether a deed from an individual to another, which had been executed in one state and then brought into another for registration, could be considered valid without being registered in that second state. The court held that it could not; instead, such deeds must be registered according to the laws of both states before they can take effect. This decision established a precedent requiring individuals who wish to transfer property across state lines to comply with all applicable laws in each jurisdiction where their deed is intended to have legal force or effect.

In the case of ORR v. HODGSON ET UX. et al., Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed Orr's appeal on jurisdictional grounds, but instead should have considered it on its merits. He reasoned that since Congress had granted jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over cases involving land titles, and this was such a case, then it was within their power to hear it regardless of whether or not there were any other issues involved with regard to state law or equity proceedings. Furthermore, he noted that even if they did decide against Orr based on those matters, his appeal would still be valid as long as his title claim remained unresolved by lower courts. In conclusion, Marshall believed that dismissing Orr's appeal without considering its merits ran counter to both justice and precedent established by prior decisions from the Supreme Court itself.