Jane M. Carroll was the plaintiff in error in this Supreme Court case, which involved a dispute over land ownership. The defendants were the lessee of George W. Carroll, De Rosz Carroll, Robert D. Carroll, Charles W. Caroll and John M Martin and his wife America as well as John Ford and his wife Mary. Jane argued that she had inherited her father's estate upon his death but that the defendants had unlawfully taken possession of it without her consent or knowledge while she was still a minor child living with her mother at another location far away from where the property was located; thus denying her rightful inheritance to it for many years until after she reached adulthood when she finally became aware of what happened to it during those intervening years since then having been denied access to it by them ever since despite repeated attempts on her part to reclaim what is rightfully hers according to law . In response ,the defendants claimed they had lawfully acquired title through adverse possession due their long-term occupancy of said property even though there existed no written deed or other legal document conveying such rights unto them nor any proof whatsoever that they paid rent or taxes on said land during all those intervening years prior thereto . Ultimately ,the court ruled in favor of Jane based upon evidence presented showing clear title belonged solely unto herself thereby granting full restitution thereof accordingly along with damages awarded against each defendant respectively for wrongfully depriving Jane out if its rightful use all these many years past up until now .

In the dissenting opinion of Jane M. Carroll v. Lessee of George W. Carroll, De Rosz Carroll, Robert D. Carroll, Charles W. Carrol, John M Martin and America his wife and John Ford and Mary his wife (1853), Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff had a right to recover in ejectment as she was entitled to possession under her deed from George W.Carroll which conveyed an undivided one-third part of the land in dispute by virtue of a contract between him and William Hays dated 1817; this contract was not set aside or annulled until after it had been acted upon by both parties for more than thirty years prior to suit being brought against them by defendant's lessor who claimed title through another deed from said George W., executed subsequent to said contract with Hays but before any action taken on it either party thereto; therefore he concluded that plaintiff should have judgment as prayed for in her declaration since she held legal title at time suit commenced even though defendants' lessor may have acquired equitable title later on due to circumstances beyond their control or knowledge at time they entered into agreement with Hays