John H. Clarke, Administrator of Willard W. Wetmore, appealed a decision by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island that granted Henry Mathewson and three other appellees title to certain real estate in Providence County. The dispute arose from a deed executed by William Wetmore in 1796 which conveyed land to his son Samuel with an agreement that it would be held for the benefit of all five sons equally after Samuel's death. When Samuel died without issue in 1808, his brothers attempted to take possession but were prevented from doing so due to legal proceedings initiated by their sister Mary who claimed she was entitled to one-third interest under her father's will as well as dower rights over the property. After years of litigation between various parties claiming interests in the land, Mathewson and others obtained judgment against Wetmore’s administrator on grounds that they had acquired title through adverse possession prior to any claims being made against them or any action taken by Mary or her heirs regarding their alleged interests in the property. On appeal before US Supreme Court, Clarke argued that he should have been allowed additional time beyond what was provided under state law since he did not receive notice until long after suit had been brought against him; however this argument was rejected and original ruling affirmed thus granting ownership rights over disputed lands solely unto Mathewson et al..

In this case, John H. Clarke, the administrator of Willard W. Wetmore's estate, appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court ruled in favor of Henry Mathewson and other appellees who were creditors of Wetmore's estate. The dispute centered around whether or not certain notes issued by Wetmore prior to his death should be considered part of his assets at the time he died and thus subject to payment from his estate upon its dissolution. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Story argued that although it was true that these notes had been issued before Wetmore passed away they still constituted an asset for which creditors could make claims against as they had not yet been paid out when he died and therefore should be included in the distribution process for settling debts owed by his estate. He further stated that if such payments were excluded then it would create an unfair situation where some creditors would receive more than others due solely on timing rather than merit or legal standing with regards to their claim against the deceased individual’s assets.