In the case of The State of Florida v. The State of Georgia, Florida brought a bill in equity against Georgia to settle a dispute over their boundary line. At issue was whether or not certain lands lying between the two states belonged to either one or both parties. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court determined that while some parts did belong exclusively to each state, other portions were shared by them and should be divided equally between them according to an agreed-upon line drawn through those areas. Furthermore, it was decided that neither party could claim exclusive rights over any part of this disputed territory without first obtaining consent from the other party involved in this suit. In conclusion, it was ruled that all claims made by either side regarding ownership must be settled amicably and with mutual agreement before any further action is taken on these matters concerning land boundaries between Florida and Georgia.

In the case of The State of Florida v. The State of Georgia, Justice Daniel Webster wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over this dispute between two states. He believed that it was up to Congress to decide how disputes between states should be resolved and that the court had no authority to do so. Furthermore, he argued that even if they did have jurisdiction, their decision would still be wrong because there were other factors at play such as geography and population size which could not be taken into account by the court's ruling. In conclusion, Justice Webster felt strongly that this matter should remain outside of judicial review and instead left for Congress or some other body with more appropriate powers to resolve it properly.