In the case of The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations v. The State of Massachusetts, the Supreme Court was asked to decide a dispute between two states over land boundaries. Rhode Island claimed that its boundary with Massachusetts extended three miles into Narragansett Bay, while Massachusetts argued that it only extended one mile. After considering evidence from both sides, including maps and historical documents dating back to colonial times, the court ruled in favor of Rhode Island's claim and determined that their boundary did indeed extend three miles into Narragansett Bay. This ruling established an important precedent for state border disputes as well as providing clarity on this particular issue between these two states.

In the case of The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations vs. The State of Massachusetts, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the boundary line between Rhode Island and Massachusetts should be determined by an equitable division rather than a literal interpretation of colonial charters. He noted that while both states had valid claims to certain lands based on their respective charters, it was not reasonable for either state to expect exclusive rights over all disputed territory. Instead, Justice McLean proposed that the court consider historical evidence as well as geographical features when determining where the boundary should lie in order to ensure fairness for both parties involved. Ultimately, his dissent was overruled by a majority decision from other justices who favored interpreting colonial charters literally instead.