In the case of The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York v. George Miln, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state statute that allowed for an individual's property to be taken by eminent domain could be applied in this particular situation. Specifically, it was determined if a city had authority under its charter from the state legislature to take private land for public use without providing compensation or due process. In this case, George Miln owned waterfront property on Manhattan Island which he leased out as wharves and docks. The City sought to condemn his land so they could build piers along their shoreline but did not provide any form of payment or other remedy for taking away his property rights. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court ruled that while states have broad powers when it comes to eminent domain laws and can allow cities within them certain privileges related thereto; however those privileges must still comply with constitutional requirements such as due process before depriving someone of their private property rights without just compensation being provided first.

In the case of The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York v. George Miln, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state statute that allowed for cities to collect fees from ships docking in their ports was constitutional. In an opinion delivered by Justice Story, it was held that such a statute did not violate any provision in either the United States Constitution or any other federal law. However, Chief Justice Marshall dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since Congress had exclusive authority over interstate commerce under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the US Constitution (the Commerce Clause), states were prohibited from enacting laws related to interstate commerce; secondly, he argued that even if states could pass such laws they would still need Congressional approval before being enforced as per Article VI clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause). As such Chief Justice Marshall concluded that since no congressional authorization had been given for this particular state statute it should be declared unconstitutional and void.