In Pickford v. Talbott, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Kentucky dating back to 1773. The case revolved around whether or not the heirs of Colonel William Preston were entitled to lands granted by him during his lifetime but never formally conveyed before his death in 1781. The court ruled that under common law principles and Virginia colonial law (which applied as Kentucky was part of Virginia at the time), an incomplete conveyance could be perfected after the grantor's death if it was clear that he intended for specific individuals to have certain lands, even if formal deeds had not been executed prior to his demise. The decision also clarified that while such claims might be barred by statutes of limitations under state law, they would still be recognized under federal equity rules unless there was evidence showing adverse possession or other factors which would extinguish them entirely. This meant that despite many years having passed since Colonel Preston's original grants, his descendants could still assert their rights against later purchasers who relied on faulty titles.

In the dissenting opinion for Pickford v. Talbott, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kentucky law prohibiting non-residents from selling liquor in the state without first obtaining a license and paying a tax was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court. The dissent contended that this law violated both interstate commerce laws and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against out-of-state businesses. It also pointed out that while states have broad powers to regulate alcohol sales within their borders, they cannot use these powers as an excuse to interfere with interstate commerce or discriminate against non-residents. Furthermore, it suggested that if such discriminatory laws were allowed to stand, they could potentially lead to economic retaliation between states and disrupt national unity.