In Taylor's Devisee v. Owing and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a will that had been partially destroyed by fire should be admitted into probate court as valid. The testator had died in 1818, leaving behind a will which his widow claimed she found among his papers after they were damaged by fire. However, two of the testator’s children argued that their father did not leave any such document and sought to have it excluded from probate proceedings on the grounds that it could not be authenticated due to its condition. After considering all of the evidence presented before them, including testimony from witnesses who knew both parties involved in this dispute, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of admitting the will into probate court as valid because there was sufficient proof provided that it belonged to deceased testator and thus should be honored according to law.

In Taylor's Devisee v. Owing and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a devise of land in Kentucky by John Taylor in 1790 should be enforced against his heirs-at-law. The majority opinion held that the devise was valid and enforceable against the heirs-at-law, but Justice Story dissented on two grounds: first, he argued that there were no facts presented which showed that Kentucky had adopted English common law principles regarding devises; second, he argued that even if such principles did exist in Kentucky at the time of John Taylor's death, they could not be applied retroactively to validate his will because it would violate due process rights under both state and federal constitutions. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that while a court may have authority to construe wills according to existing laws when they are made or executed after those laws come into force, it cannot do so for wills made before those laws existed.