To help resolve the issue, in 1781 Virginia agreed to surrender to the United States federal government all title to its land claims west of the Ohio River.

[5] In 1792, after 10 constitutional conventions and three statehood enabling acts passed by the Virginia legislature, Kentucky was admitted as a state on June 1, 1792.

[4] On February 27, 1797, the state of Kentucky passed legislation protecting individuals who had title to their land stripped from them due to improper conveyance.

In part, the legislation: 1) Absolved the former titleholder from paying any rent or profits accrued while improper title was held (e.g., mesne profits); 2) Held the successful claimant liable to the former titleholder for any improvements made to the property; and 3) In the case where improvements exceeded the value of the unimproved land, the successful claimant could return the property to the former titleholder without paying the balance or the successful claimant could keep the property but was required to post a bond and warranty until the value of the improvements was paid.

[7] On January 31, 1812, Kentucky again passed legislation protecting individuals who had title to their land stripped from them due to improper conveyance.

This second legislation, in part: 1) Required successful claimants to pay to ejected titleholders, 2) The successful claimant may avoid paying the value of the improvements by relinquishing the land and accepting payment in the amount of the value of the unimproved property instead, or may keep the land (but must post bond and warranty if the value of improvements exceeds three-fourths of the value of the unimproved property); 3) The ejected titleholder is responsible for paying rents and profits on the property after judgment against him, but only up to a period not to exceed five years after the ruling against him; and 4) Courts must ascertain the value of land, rents, and profits in such cases.

[9] Justice Story conceded that each state has the sovereign right to determine the legal structure under which property may be conveyed and title settled.

"[11] The question before the Court, then, was whether the acts of 1797 and 1812 restricted titleholders' rights enumerated under Virginia law at the time the compact entered into force in 1784.

[16] However, he concluded, the Kentucky acts restricted titleholders' rights and imposed duties and responsibilities on them that Virginia law and court decisions did not contain.

[18] The first claim, Washington observed, was based on the idea that Congress had not given its explicit consent to specific article in question in the compact.