In Joseph Barclay, Florence Colter and John M. Snowden v. Richard W. Howell's Lessee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee of land had an obligation to pay rent for it when he was not in possession of the property due to his eviction by another party who claimed title to the land through adverse possession. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to receive rent from their tenant despite him being evicted since he still held legal title as lessee under their lease agreement with him and thus should be liable for payment of rent even though he did not have actual possession or control over the premises at issue. The court ultimately ruled against them on this point, finding that since there had been no demand made upon Howell’s Lessee for payment of rent during his period without physical occupancy nor any other action taken by either party which would indicate recognition of such an obligation on behalf of said tenant, then no such duty existed between landlord and tenant in this case; therefore judgment was entered in favor defendant Richard W. Howell's Lessee accordingly

In the case of Joseph Barclay, Florence Colter and John M. Snowden v. Richard W. Howell's Lessee, the dissenting opinion was that the plaintiffs had a valid claim to their land in question due to an act of Congress passed in 1820 which granted them title to it. The majority opinion held that since they did not have actual possession or occupancy of the land at issue, they could not be considered owners under common law principles and thus were unable to bring suit against Howell for trespass on their property rights as he claimed ownership over it through his lease from another party who also claimed title by virtue of a pre-existing grant from Virginia prior to 1820. The dissent argued that this decision ignored Congressional intent when passing said act as well as disregarded established legal precedent regarding how such cases should be decided; namely, if there is any doubt about whether one has rightful title then all claims must be weighed equally regardless of possession or occupancy status until such time as clear evidence can prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.