In Zeller's Lessee v. Jacob K. Eckert and Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving land titles in Pennsylvania that were granted by Virginia before it became an independent state. The dispute arose when two individuals claimed title to the same tract of land based on conflicting grants from Virginia prior to its independence. The Supreme Court held that while states have exclusive authority over their own lands, they do not have absolute sovereignty over all matters within their borders; rather, federal law must be respected where applicable. Furthermore, because both parties' claims derived from pre-independence grants issued by Virginia, those rights could only be determined through federal courts as opposed to state courts due to the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution which establishes federal law as supreme over any conflicting laws passed by individual states or territories. Thus, since this particular dispute involved questions regarding property rights under federal common law (as opposed to local statutes), it was beyond the scope of a state court’s jurisdiction and should instead be decided in a U.S District Court with proper appellate review available if necessary

In Zeller's Lessee v. Jacob K. Eckert and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving land titles that were granted by Virginia before it became part of the United States. The majority opinion held that since the lands in question were located within what is now West Virginia, which was once part of Virginia, then the state courts did have jurisdiction over this matter. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly because he argued that Congress alone has authority to decide questions regarding title to public lands; secondly because he believed that if states are allowed to exercise such power then they will be able to interfere with federal laws concerning public lands and thus undermine national sovereignty. In conclusion, Justice McLean argued against allowing state courts any say in matters relating to title or ownership of public lands as it would weaken federal control over these areas and could lead to conflict between different states’ laws governing them.