In the Matter of Josiah S. Stafford and Jeannette Kirkland, His Wife v. The New Orleans Canal and Banking Company was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1854. At issue was whether or not an act passed by Congress in 1841 which allowed for certain lands to be sold at public auction applied retroactively to land owned by the appellants prior to that date. The court found that it did not, ruling against the banking company who had purchased said land from a third party after its passage but before it became law due to delays in publication of official documents related thereto. This decision established precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding retroactive application of laws enacted by Congress as well as those concerning laches (the legal doctrine whereby equitable relief is denied when one has unreasonably delayed seeking such).

In the Matter of Josiah S. Stafford and Jeannette Kirkland, His Wife v. The New Orleans Canal and Banking Company was a case in which the Supreme Court had to decide whether or not an act passed by Congress in 1846 could be applied retroactively to a contract made prior to its passage. The majority opinion held that it could, while Justice McLean dissented on the grounds that such application would violate principles of justice and equity as well as established legal precedent. He argued that if Congress intended for this act to apply retrospectively then they should have explicitly stated so when passing it into law; instead, he believed their silence indicated an intention for prospective application only. Furthermore, he noted how applying this new law retroactively would disrupt existing contracts between parties who entered them with certain expectations based on pre-existing laws at the time of signing - something which is unfair both legally and ethically speaking. In conclusion, Justice McLean felt strongly that any retrospective application of this particular Act was unjustified due to its potential disruption of existing contractual agreements between parties who acted in good faith under different laws than those now being imposed upon them after-the-fact