This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between four appointed trustees and two individuals over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Ohio. The trustees had been appointed by the court to manage the land, which had been left to the two individuals by their father. The two individuals argued that the trustees had no right to manage the land, as they had not been appointed by the father. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the trustees, finding that the trustees had been appointed by the court and had the right to manage the land. The Court also found that the two individuals had no legal right to the land, as they had not been appointed by the father. The Court held that the trustees had the right to manage the land and that the two individuals had no legal right to the land.

In the case of ASA Hunt, Franklin H. Eaton, Joseph P. Manning and George Armstrong v Ephraim H. Bender, Charles A. Henry and Annan Henry, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misconstrued certain facts of the case to reach their conclusion that no contract existed between the parties involved in this dispute over land ownership rights. He believed that there was sufficient evidence to show an agreement had been reached between them; namely, that they would exchange lands with each other for mutual benefit as part of a larger transaction involving several parcels of property owned by both sides at issue here. Furthermore, he argued that even if such an agreement did not exist on its face or could not be proven through direct testimony from either party involved in this suit - it should still be inferred based upon all available circumstantial evidence presented during trial proceedings before lower courts below (which were affirmed by appellate court decisions). In summing up his dissent Justice Field concluded: “The circumstances detailed are so strong and convincing as to leave no reasonable doubt but what some kind of understanding existed between these parties respecting their respective interests."