In the case of The Hiram, Cornthwait et al. Claimants, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a certain tract of land in Ohio belonged to claimants who had purchased it from an Indian tribe or if it belonged to another party who claimed they had acquired title through a grant from Congress. After examining both sides' arguments and evidence presented, the court determined that although there were some irregularities in how the original deed for this property was obtained by Congress, these did not invalidate their claim as owners. Furthermore, since no other party could produce any valid documents proving ownership prior to Congressional action on this matter, they concluded that all rights and titles over this land should be vested with them.

In the case of The Hiram, Cornthwait et al. Claimants, a majority opinion was issued by the Supreme Court that denied compensation to claimants who had purchased land from Native Americans in Ohio prior to statehood. However, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion which argued that Congress had not intended for such purchasers to be excluded from receiving compensation when they were promised it under federal law. He noted that this promise was made at a time when there was no clear distinction between Indian and non-Indian lands in Ohio and thus those who bought land should have been able to rely on their purchases as valid transactions with legal effect. Furthermore, he argued that denying these claims would create an unjust result since it would leave innocent buyers without any remedy or recompense for their losses despite having acted in good faith reliance on promises made by the government.