In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Richard King and Daniel W. Coxe, the plaintiffs argued that a certain tract of land in Texas was owned by them as part of their public domain, while defendants claimed it belonged to them under an 1834 grant from Mexico. At issue was whether or not this grant had been legally made and if so, did it convey title to the defendants? After examining all evidence presented before it, including testimony from witnesses on both sides as well as documents related to Mexican law at the time of granting, the court determined that there were irregularities in how this particular grant had been issued and thus could not be recognized by U.S courts; therefore ruling against defendant's claim for ownership over said property. This decision established important precedent regarding recognition of foreign grants within U.S borders which still stands today

In the case of The United States v. Richard King and Daniel W. Coxe, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a certain tract of land in Texas belonged to Mexico or the United States. The majority opinion held that it belonged to Mexico, but Chief Justice Taney dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that Congress had already determined by statute that all lands east of the Rio Grande were part of Texas and thus part of the United States; he also noted that there was no evidence presented at trial showing any title or claim by Mexico over these lands prior to 1836 when Texas declared its independence from Mexico; finally, he pointed out that even if such evidence did exist, it would be insufficient because Mexican law did not recognize private titles beyond their own borders until after 1848 when they ratified a treaty with Great Britain recognizing foreign titles within their boundaries. In conclusion, Chief Justice Taney argued strongly for upholding Congress' determination regarding ownership rights in this dispute and asserted his belief that these lands should remain under U.S jurisdiction as per Congressional decree rather than reverting back to Mexican control based on pre-1836 claims which could not be proven anyway due to lack of recognition under Mexican law at the time