In the case of The State of Massachusetts v. The State of Rhode Island, the Supreme Court was asked to decide a dispute between two states over land rights and boundaries. Massachusetts argued that it had acquired certain lands from its original charter in 1691, while Rhode Island claimed that those same lands were part of their own colony's charter in 1663. After examining both charters as well as other historical documents, the court determined that although some areas may have been included within both colonies' charters at one point or another, they ultimately belonged to Massachusetts based on its earlier grant date and more extensive documentation supporting its claim. As such, the court ruled in favor of Massachusetts and upheld their right to ownership over these disputed territories.

In the case of The State of Massachusetts Ads. The State of Rhode Island, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the boundary line between Massachusetts and Rhode Island should be determined by an agreement between both states rather than by judicial decision. He noted that there was no dispute as to where the original charter granted to each state began or ended, but instead it was only a question as to whether certain islands were part of either state's territory. In his view, this issue could not be resolved without taking into account various considerations such as geography and history; thus, it would be best for both states to come together and agree on their respective boundaries through negotiation or arbitration. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded that while he agreed with much of what had been said in support of the majority opinion, he felt compelled to dissent due to his belief that any resolution must involve mutual consent from both parties involved.