This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the devisees of Daniel Carroll and the heirs at law of Alfred R. Dowson over land in Washington, D.C., that had been owned by both parties' predecessors. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to title to the property because their predecessor had purchased it from an individual who held legal title to it, while the defendants claimed that their predecessor was granted ownership through a deed from Congress prior to any purchase by Carroll's ancestor. After reviewing all evidence presented, including testimony regarding possession and use of the land as well as records related to its sale and transfer, Chief Justice Taney ruled in favor of Nicholas Dorsey et al., finding them legally entitled to ownership based on Congressional action granting them rights before any other party could have acquired those same rights through purchase or otherwise.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jane Carroll, Maria C. Fitzhugh, et al., Devisees of Daniel Carroll of Duddington v. Nicholas Dorsey, Noah Dorsey, Achsah Dorsey and Tristam S. Dorsey was that the court should have dismissed the bill filed by plaintiffs as it did not contain sufficient facts to support a cause for relief or any legal grounds on which they could recover damages from defendants. The dissent argued that there were no allegations made in the bill regarding how much money had been paid out by plaintiff’s ancestor Daniel Carroll to Alfred R Dowson and his heirs at law (defendants) nor was there any evidence presented showing what amount would be due if payment had been made according to contract between them; therefore without such proof it is impossible for this court to determine whether or not defendant's are entitled to receive anything from plaintiff's estate as compensation for services rendered by their ancestor Alfred R Dowson. Furthermore, even if all other elements necessary for recovery were present in this case – i.e., an agreement between parties with consideration given - still absent here is a clear statement of facts upon which judgment can be based; thus making dismissal appropriate under these circumstances