This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of land in Missouri. The appellants, Scott and others, argued that they had acquired title to the land through a Spanish grant issued by the government of Spain before it ceded control of Louisiana Territory to France in 1803. The respondents, Shreeve and others, claimed that their own title was superior because it was based on an earlier French grant from 1795. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that since neither party could prove conclusively which nation's laws applied at the time when each claim originated—Spain or France—the original Spanish grant must be recognized as valid under U.S law due to its seniority in time. As such, Scott and his associates were declared rightful owners of the disputed property with all attendant rights thereto belonging.

In Scott and Others v. Shreeve and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing statute. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy by circumventing the law. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision arguing that contracts are binding on both parties regardless of any violations of statutes or public policy considerations. He argued that while courts may refuse to enforce such contracts when they conflict with laws enacted for "the protection of society," they cannot do so when there is no clear indication that enforcement would lead to harm or injustice against either party involved in the agreement itself. Furthermore, he contended that allowing individuals to make their own agreements without interference from government regulations would promote economic growth and prosperity more than attempting to regulate every aspect of commerce through legislation alone ever could.