This Supreme Court case involved Henry O. Clark, Ira Justin Jr., and A. Hyatt Smith (plaintiffs in error) suing Henry C. Bowen, Theodore McNamee, Samuel P. Holmes, and Henry L. Stone (defendants). The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had wrongfully taken possession of a certain tract of land located in California which was owned by them as tenants-in-common under an agreement made between them prior to 1851 when California became part of the United States; they argued that their rights were protected by the Treaty with Mexico signed on February 2nd 1848 and thus could not be disturbed or interfered with without their consent or due process from a court of law. The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs stating that since California had become part of the United States before any action was taken regarding this property dispute it fell within federal jurisdiction rather than Mexican jurisdiction so no treaty protection applied to it; furthermore they found that even if such protection did apply then it would have been superseded by subsequent laws passed after statehood making all claims subject to local courts for adjudication - therefore denying relief for these particular claimants who failed to bring suit at an earlier date while still under Mexican rule .

In the case of Henry O. Clark, Ira Justin Jr., and A. Hyatt Smith v. Henry C. Bowen, Theodore McNamee, Samuel P. Holmes, and Henry L Stone, the dissenting opinion was that the plaintiffs had a right to bring their suit in equity against defendants for an injunction restraining them from interfering with plaintiff's possession of certain lands in California which they claimed under Mexican grants made before 1848 when Mexico ceded California to the United States government as part of its treaty settlement with Mexico at that time. The majority opinion held that since these lands were now within U.S territory after being acquired by conquest or treaty from another nation (Mexico), no action could be maintained by individuals claiming title thereto prior to such acquisition; however Justice Grier dissented on this point arguing that it would be unjust for those who had settled upon these lands and improved them according to Mexican law only then have their rights taken away without compensation due simply because they happened to live within land boundaries which changed hands through war or diplomacy between two nations over whom they had no control whatsoever . He argued further that if Congress intended such injustice it should make explicit provision therefor rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation based on general principles applicable across all cases involving similar facts regardless of any particular circumstances involved therein