In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. George N. Stewart, the plaintiff argued that a certain piece of land in California was part of a Mexican grant and thus belonged to them as it had been acquired by treaty with Mexico after the Mexican-American War. The defendant, however, claimed that he had purchased this same land from another party who held title to it prior to its acquisition by treaty with Mexico and therefore his claim should be upheld over that of the plaintiff's. After much deliberation on both sides' arguments, including an examination into whether or not there were any other claimants for this particular parcel of land at issue in addition to those already mentioned, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Stewart based on their finding that no other claimant existed for said property at time when it was acquired by him through purchase from another party who held title thereto prior to its acquisition via treaty with Mexico.

In the case of The United States v. George N. Stewart, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against a federal officer for damages caused while executing his official duties in that other state. Justice McLean wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that under Article III of the Constitution, only federal courts have jurisdiction over suits between citizens from different states and those involving officers or agents acting on behalf of the United States government. He argued further that even if it were assumed that Congress could grant such authority to state courts through legislation, no such law existed at this time which would allow them to hear cases like this one. Therefore he concluded that since there was no applicable statute granting power to do so, then it must be left up to Congress alone and not delegated out as requested by plaintiff's counsel in this case.