er good or it was not and the law protected people who had a good title. (6)This case involved large amounts of land that were a part of Virginia but later became Kentucky. George Mason?s land was in dispute after he died and his heir Richard Mason took claim to it. Mason?s title became in dispute because it was described inaccurately in the surveyed papers. George Wilson realized this and applied for the same land. Mason won in the lower courts but Wilson appealed to the Supreme Court. The other Justices and John Marshall ruled in favor of George Wilson. The entire history of laws governing the land in question, the deficiencies in Mason?s claim to ownership and Wilson?s right to seek compensation were brought to Mason?s attention by Marshall. This complicated decision revealed Marshall?s extensive knowledge of Virginia property laws. Another point is that federal courts were serving notice that in dealing with land titles which was a tremendous issue to Americans who had their fortunes tied up in land that they had to have the law strictly adhered to. The council for Mason argued that the Supreme Court had no right to hear an appeal because Virginia and Kentucky had agreed to an arrangement between them that such cases were not appealable beyond the local district courts. Marshall responded by saying that the intention of the agreement was to preserve land titles and not to preserve the tribunals, which must judge the validity of those titles. He also went on to say that government operates to serve, not be served and that institutions must be tools of the people and that people are not to be tools of the institution. Marshall felt that he was the guardian of the court and he understood that he must be the interpreter of the Constitution. He was not going to allow any members of the federal Union to take on themselves the power to destroy the Constitution. This case proved that they could not weaken the power of the Sup...
