In The United States v. William and Alexander McCullagh and James Cornahan, Trustees of the Heirs of Alexander McCullagh and David McCaleb, the Supreme Court considered a dispute between the United States government and three trustees over land in Pennsylvania that had been granted to certain individuals by an act of Congress in 1820. The government argued that it was entitled to reclaim title to this land because it had not been improved or cultivated as required by law. However, the trustees contended that they were legally entitled to retain possession of the property since their predecessors had made substantial improvements on it prior to its reversion back into federal hands. After considering both sides’ arguments, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the trustees, finding that they were indeed lawfully entitled to keep possession of this land due its having been substantially improved before reverting back into federal control.

In the United States v. William and Alexander McCullagh and James Cornahan, Trustees of the Heirs of Alexander McCullagh and David McCaleb, a dissenting opinion was issued by Justice McLean. The case concerned an appeal from a decision in favor of the appellees who claimed title to certain lands under grants made by Spain prior to 1819 when Florida became part of the United States. In his dissent, Justice McLean argued that although it is true that Spanish laws were in force at one time over this territory, they had been superseded by those passed since its acquisition; thus any grant or claim which did not conform with these laws should be considered invalid. Furthermore he stated that if such claims are allowed then there would be no end to litigation as many other claimants may come forward with similar titles derived from Spanish sources before 1819. Therefore he concluded that all such titles must fail unless confirmed by Congress or some competent tribunal established for this purpose