In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States vs. Nicholas Stansbury and Edward Morgan, the plaintiffs argued that a certain piece of land in Pennsylvania was owned by them as part of an original grant from William Penn to Thomas Holme in 1681. They claimed that this land had been passed down through generations until it eventually came into their possession. However, defendants Stansbury and Morgan argued that they were entitled to the same property under another deed granted by William Penn's heirs in 1732. The court ultimately sided with the defendants, finding that since both deeds originated from one source - namely William Penn - there could not be two valid titles for one parcel of land at once and thus ruled against the plaintiffs' claim on ownership rights over said property.

In the United States vs. Nicholas Stansbury and Edward Morgan, the dissenting opinion argued that Congress had not given any authority to a court of admiralty to try an indictment for murder committed on board a vessel in navigable waters. The majority opinion held that such power was implied from other statutes, but Justice Story disagreed with this interpretation. He argued that if Congress intended to give courts of admiralty jurisdiction over criminal cases like this one, they would have done so explicitly rather than implying it through other laws. Furthermore, he noted that there were several instances where Congress had specifically granted such powers when it wished them conferred upon courts of admiralty; thus its silence in this case should be taken as evidence against granting such authority here.