In Boyd's Lessee v. Graves et al., the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving two parties, James Boyd and William Graves. The dispute arose when Boyd purchased land from an individual who had no legal title to it, while Graves held a valid deed for that same property. In its ruling, the court found in favor of Graves by holding that he was entitled to possession of the land as he had obtained his deed through proper channels and thus had superior rights over any other claimant. Furthermore, it established precedent stating that one cannot acquire title to another’s property without first obtaining permission from them or their rightful owner; otherwise they are liable for trespass and damages caused by their unlawful entry onto said property. This decision has been cited numerous times since then in cases concerning real estate law and is still used today as an important part of American jurisprudence on this subject matter

In Boyd's Lessee v. Graves et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could issue a writ of ejectment against an individual who held title to land under the federal government. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Marshall, found that it could not and ruled in favor of Boyd’s Lessee. However, Justice Johnson wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that states had concurrent jurisdiction over lands within their borders and should be able to exercise this power when necessary. He argued that if Congress intended for the federal government alone to have control over these lands then they would have expressly stated so in legislation or treaties with foreign nations; since no such language existed he believed it was reasonable for states to assume they had some authority over them as well. Furthermore, he noted that allowing state courts access would provide more efficient remedies than those available through federal courts which were often slow and expensive due to their limited number of judgeships at the time. Ultimately Johnson concluded his dissent by stating “the right is too important…to be taken away without express words."