William Wallace brought a case against Corry M'Connell to the Supreme Court in 1839. The dispute was over an unpaid debt of $1,000 that had been incurred by William's father before his death. William argued that he should not be held responsible for this debt since it was made prior to him coming of age and therefore did not legally bind him. However, the court ruled in favor of Corry M'Connell on the basis that when a minor comes into possession or control of property through inheritance from their parent they are liable for any debts associated with said property unless otherwise specified in writing at the time of transfer. This ruling set precedent for future cases involving minors and inherited debts as well as established legal responsibility upon those who come into possession or control over such assets regardless if they were aware or unaware at the time.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in the same state. The majority opinion held that such suits were within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts and thus could not be heard in a state court. Justice McLean dissented from this decision, arguing that it would lead to unnecessary delays and expense for litigants who must now bring their cases before federal courts instead of local ones. He further argued that there is no constitutional provision which gives Congress exclusive power over all controversies between citizens of different states; rather, he believed that each individual State should have concurrent authority with Congress on matters involving its own citizens. Finally, Justice McLean noted that if Congress intended to grant itself exclusive control over these types of disputes then they should have done so explicitly through legislation or amendment rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation.