Lewis Bissell, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Mary B. Penrose, defendant. The dispute was over the ownership of certain real estate located in Philadelphia County and the rights to collect rents from it. Bissell claimed that he had purchased the property from one John Mifflin and thus held title to it; however, Penrose argued that she had inherited it through her husband's will and therefore owned it outright. The Supreme Court ultimately found for Penrose on the basis of two points: firstly, that there was no evidence presented by Bissell proving his purchase of said property; secondly, even if such proof did exist then under Pennsylvania law at the time any prior sale would be invalidated due to its being made without notice or consent from either party involved in inheritance proceedings related to this particular piece of land. In conclusion, Mary B. Penrose retained full legal ownership over this disputed real estate as per court ruling

In Lewis Bissell v. Mary B. Penrose, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving land located in two different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal of Mr. Bissell, who argued that he should be allowed to pursue his claim in the state court where he resided rather than having to travel across state lines for trial proceedings. Justice McLean dissented from this decision, arguing that there were no legal grounds for denying Mr. Bissell's right to sue in his home state as long as all parties involved consented and agreed upon venue within their respective jurisdictions; furthermore, Justice McLean noted that allowing individuals like Mr. Bissel access to justice without requiring them to traverse multiple states would help ensure fairness and equity among litigants regardless of their location or residence status at any given time during litigation proceedings