In the case of Daniel South, John W. Stouffer, Jacob Fiery, Daniel Middlekauff Senior and John A. K. Brewer v The State of Maryland (use of Jonathan W Pottle), the plaintiffs in error argued that they were entitled to compensation for a portion of their land which had been taken by the state without just compensation as required by law. They claimed that this was an unconstitutional taking under Article I Section 10 Clause 1 of the United States Constitution and sought damages from Maryland for their losses due to this illegal action on behalf of the state government. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against them however, finding that since no specific statute existed at the time allowing individuals to sue states over such matters then there was no legal basis upon which they could seek redress or receive any form recompense for their loss from Maryland's actions.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice Grier argued that the Maryland Court of Appeals had erred in its decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Daniel South and his co-plaintiffs. He believed that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for their losses due to an illegal seizure by Jonathan Pottle on behalf of Maryland. The majority opinion held that since Pottle was acting as an agent for Maryland, he could not be sued directly and thus no damages could be awarded. However, Justice Grier disagreed with this reasoning because it would allow agents like Pottle to act without any accountability or fear of legal repercussions if they acted illegally while representing a state government. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such behavior would go against established principles of justice which require those who wrongfully take property from another person must compensate them accordingly.