In Anderson v. Dunn, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute between two individuals over land in Georgia. The plaintiff, William Anderson, argued that he had purchased the land from an individual who held title to it and thus was entitled to possession of it. The defendant, John Dunn, claimed that he had been granted title by the state of Georgia and therefore should be allowed to keep possession of it. In its ruling on this case, the Supreme Court found for Anderson and determined that his purchase gave him superior rights over those granted by Georgia's grantee system; as such they affirmed his right to possess the property in question. This decision established important precedent regarding private ownership versus public grants when determining rightful ownership of disputed lands within states' boundaries.

In Anderson v. Dunn, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a writ of error should be issued in order for an individual to appeal a decision made by the Circuit Court of Georgia. The majority opinion held that no such writ should be issued because it would violate Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution which states that appeals can only be taken from state courts when authorized by Congress. Justice Johnson dissented and argued that since there is nothing in either federal or state law prohibiting individuals from appealing decisions made by circuit courts, then they should have access to do so through a writ of error as provided for under common law practice. He further noted that if this were not allowed then it would deny citizens their right to due process and equal protection under the law as guaranteed by both federal and state constitutions.