The Friendschaft case was a dispute between the United States and claimants to land in Missouri. The claimants argued that they had acquired title to the land through Spanish grants, while the US maintained that it had exclusive jurisdiction over all public lands within its boundaries. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court held that although Spain may have granted titles to some of these lands prior to cession by France in 1803, those titles were not valid under American law since they did not meet certain requirements set out by Congress for granting such rights. Furthermore, any claims based on pre-cession French grants would also be invalid due to their lack of recognition under American law. As a result, all claims made by private individuals or companies regarding ownership of public lands must be brought before Congress for consideration and resolution.

In The Friendschaft -- Winn, et al. Claimants case, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties that had been made in 1790 and ratified by Congress in 1802 could be enforced after it had expired. Justice Story wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that although the contract did not have an explicit expiration date, it should still be considered invalid because of its age and lack of enforcement over time. He argued that contracts must remain valid for some period of time to ensure their enforceability but also noted that they cannot last forever due to changing circumstances or conditions which may render them unenforceable at some point. Furthermore, he stated that if such contracts were allowed to stand indefinitely without any limitation on their duration then this would create uncertainty as well as potential abuse from those seeking to take advantage of outdated agreements.