Nathaniel Burwell, the complainant and appellant in this case, brought a suit against Daniel Cawood, William C. Gardner (executor of Joseph Mandeville), and John West (defendants). The dispute arose from an agreement between Burwell and Mandeville that was made in 1795. According to the agreement, Burwell would pay off certain debts owed by Mandeville for land located on the James River in Virginia if he received title to said land after all debts were paid off. However, when it came time for him to receive his title deed upon completion of payment of all debtors’ claims against Mandeville’s estate as agreed upon years prior; he was denied due to other creditors having filed their own claims with higher priority than his own claim which had been previously established through contract law. As such, Burwell sought relief from the Supreme Court claiming that he should be granted legal ownership over said property since it had already been agreed upon at its inception that he would become owner once all debtors' claims were satisfied - regardless of any new claimants who may have come forward later on during probate proceedings or otherwise. Ultimately however; despite being found legally entitled to ownership under contract law principles; due court precedence set forth by previous cases involving similar disputes prevented him from obtaining full satisfaction as desired according to his original contractual arrangement with Joseph Mandeville's estate many years before.

In the case of Nathaniel Burwell v. Daniel Cawood, William C. Gardner, Executor of Joseph Mandeville and John West, Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Virginia Court had erred in its ruling against Burwell. He stated that there was no evidence to support the court's decision and that it should have been reversed on appeal due to lack of proof from either side as to who owned the land at issue. Furthermore, he noted that even if one party did own it at some point prior to litigation beginning, they could not prove exclusive ownership without clear title documents or other reliable evidence showing such possession existed before any dispute arose between them and another claimant. Finally, Justice McLean concluded by stating his belief that both parties should be allowed access until further investigation into their respective claims can be conducted so justice may prevail for all involved parties regardless of their individual circumstances surrounding this particular case