The Frances, Boyer, Master case was a dispute between the United States and Kennedy's Claim. The Supreme Court held that the United States had no right to interfere with Kennedy's claim of ownership over certain lands in Louisiana. The court reasoned that when France ceded Louisiana to the United States in 1803, it did not include any rights or claims from private individuals such as Kennedy. Therefore, since there was no evidence of an agreement between France and the US regarding these claims prior to transferral of title, they were still valid after transferral. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving similar disputes between private citizens and governments concerning land titles acquired through foreign powers before their incorporation into a larger nation-state.

Justice Story delivered the dissenting opinion in this case, arguing that Kennedy's claim should have been allowed. He argued that the contract between Frances and Boyer was not a valid one because it did not contain any of the elements necessary for a binding agreement. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were an implied promise to pay by Frances, she had already paid off her debt with interest before Master took possession of her property. Therefore, Justice Story concluded that Kennedy's claim should be allowed as he had no knowledge of any prior payment or obligation when he purchased the property from Master. In conclusion, Justice Story believed Kennedy was entitled to recover his money since his purchase was made without notice or knowledge of any previous transaction involving Frances and Boyer which would have discharged her debt.