The U.S. Supreme Court case Virginia v. Tennessee in 1892 revolved around a boundary dispute between the two states, with Virginia claiming that an 1803 survey incorrectly marked the border and thus encroached on its territory. The court ruled in favor of Tennessee, upholding the validity of the disputed boundary line based on three main factors: first, both states had recognized and accepted this line for many years; secondly, they had exercised jurisdiction within their respective sides without objection from either party; thirdly, citizens living near or along this borderline acknowledged it as well. Therefore, despite any initial errors made during its demarcation process back in 1803 - which was conducted by commissioners appointed by each state - such long-standing acceptance effectively legitimized this contested boundary under principles of acquiescence and prescription.

In the dissenting opinion for Virginia v. Tennessee, Justice Field disagreed with the majority's ruling that upheld a boundary line agreement between Virginia and Tennessee from 1803. He argued that states do not have authority to alter boundaries established at their admission into the Union without congressional approval. According to him, such changes could potentially affect federal representation and taxation, which are determined based on state territories. Therefore, he believed it was necessary for Congress to approve any alterations in state boundaries after they join the Union as this would ensure uniformity in federal representation and taxation across all states. This view differed from the majority who held that agreements made directly between states regarding their borders were valid if there was mutual consent and no adverse effect on other states or national interests.