The City of Boston brought a case against David R. Lecraw, claiming that he had unlawfully taken possession of certain real estate in the city and was refusing to vacate it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City, finding that Lecraw's claim to ownership was invalid because his deed did not include any legal title or right to possess the property. Furthermore, they found that even if he had been able to prove ownership through some other means, such as by showing proof of payment for it or inheritance from another owner with valid title rights, this would still be insufficient since there were no laws allowing him to take possession without permission from either the original owner or an authorized agent representing them. Ultimately, this decision affirmed that individuals cannot simply take over someone else's land without proper authorization and legal justification for doing so.

In this case, the City of Boston argued that David R. Lecraw was liable for a debt he had incurred while acting as an agent on behalf of another person. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled in favor of Lecraw, finding that he should not be held responsible for the debt since it was contracted by someone else who had authority to act on his behalf. Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that although the contract may have been made by someone with authority to do so, Lecraw still had knowledge of it and accepted its benefits; therefore, he should be held accountable for any debts associated with it. He further stated that if agents are allowed to escape responsibility when they know their principal is unable or unwilling to pay their debts then creditors will suffer greatly from such negligence and injustice.