In the case of Bowie v. Henderson et al., James Bowie sued John Henderson and others for trespass, claiming that they had wrongfully entered his land in Louisiana and cut down trees without permission. The Supreme Court held that under the Louisiana Civil Code, a person who enters another's property without permission is liable to pay damages for any injury or damage done while on the premises. Furthermore, it was found that even though there were no specific laws governing timber cutting at this time, such an act could still be considered as trespassing since it constituted an invasion of another's rights to exclusive possession of their land. As such, the court ruled in favor of Bowie and ordered Henderson et al. to pay him compensation for damages caused by their actions on his property.

In the case of Bowie v. Henderson et al., Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Story and Johnson. He argued that the Court should not have dismissed the writ of error, as it was issued by an inferior court with jurisdiction over this matter. The majority had held that since there were no facts in dispute, they could not review any errors made by the lower court; however, Marshall disagreed with this reasoning because he believed that if an error had been committed then it should be corrected regardless of whether or not there were facts in dispute. Furthermore, he noted that even though some questions may appear to be settled law at first glance, further examination can reveal new interpretations which would benefit from judicial review. Ultimately, Marshall concluded his dissent by stating his belief that dismissing such a writ without examining its merits was contrary to established principles and practices within American jurisprudence.