In the case of Walter Smith, John Carter, William S. Nichols and Others v. Dennis Condry, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from Clement Smith to Dennis Condry was valid or not. The plaintiffs argued that Clement had been mentally incompetent when he signed it and therefore it should be declared void as a matter of law. However, the court found that there was no evidence presented which showed that Clement lacked mental capacity at the time he executed his deed; thus they held in favor of defendant Condry and affirmed the lower court's decision upholding validity of said deed.

In the case of Walter Smith, John Carter, William S. Nichols and Others v Dennis Condry, the dissenting opinion was that a state court should not have jurisdiction over a federal question. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to recover damages for an injury caused by negligence on behalf of the defendant in accordance with their rights under federal law. However, it was held that since this dispute arose within the boundaries of one state only (Tennessee), then it must be decided according to Tennessee law rather than federal law as there is no provision in either Constitution or statute which gives exclusive cognizance to any particular tribunal when such questions arise between citizens of different states. The dissenters disagreed with this ruling and argued that if a controversy arises out of matters governed by national laws or treaties then it should be heard before a tribunal having authority from Congress to decide upon them; otherwise justice would not be done because each state might interpret those laws differently leading to conflicting decisions across jurisdictions.