In Peisch and Others v. Ware and Others, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an action of ejectment brought by several individuals against other individuals for land in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs argued that they had purchased the property from one John Peisch, who was entitled to it through his father's will. However, defendants contended that their ancestor had been granted title to this same land by a royal grant prior to any purchase made by Mr. Peisch or his father before him. After hearing both sides' arguments, Chief Justice Marshall delivered an opinion on behalf of the court which held that while there were some discrepancies between what each party claimed regarding ownership rights over this particular parcel of land, ultimately it would be up to a jury at trial to decide which side should prevail based upon all evidence presented in court as well as applicable state law governing such matters at the time.

In Peisch and Others v. Ware and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Massachusetts statute that allowed creditors of insolvent debtors to collect their debts from any assets held by the debtor prior to bankruptcy proceedings violated Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion found that it did not violate this clause because it applied equally across all states, while Justice Samuel Chase argued in dissent that such a law would be unconstitutional as it interfered with contracts between individuals without due process of law. He further argued that Congress should have been given exclusive power over bankruptcies instead of allowing individual states to pass laws on this matter. In conclusion, Justice Chase believed that state legislatures had no authority under the Constitution to interfere with private contracts or create new rights for creditors at the expense of debtors without congressional approval first being obtained.