John Dubois, lessee of Oliver S. Wolcott, brought a case against Andrew D. Hepburn to the Supreme Court in 1836. The dispute was over a contract between the two parties that had been signed in 1832 for the sale and lease of certain lands located in Ohio. Dubois claimed that he had fulfilled all his obligations under the contract but Hepburn refused to honor it and instead tried to take possession of some of the land himself without paying any compensation or rent as required by their agreement. The Supreme Court found that although there were ambiguities present within both parties’ interpretation of their contract, they ultimately ruled in favor of John Dubois because it was clear from evidence presented during trial that he had done everything necessary on his part according to what was agreed upon when signing said document four years prior.

In the dissenting opinion of John Dubois, Lessee of Oliver S. Wolcott v. Andrew D. Hepburn, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff had a valid claim to the land in dispute and should be granted relief from the lower court's decision against them. He believed that under Connecticut law, which was applicable in this case due to its location within that state's borders, it was clear that when an individual purchased property with full knowledge of any outstanding claims or encumbrances on it they were responsible for settling those prior obligations before taking possession of said land; as such he felt there was no legal basis for denying Mr. Wolcott his rightful title to the property at issue here. Furthermore he noted how both parties had acted in good faith throughout this entire process and thus neither deserved to suffer financial loss because one party failed to properly investigate their purchase beforehand - something which could have been easily avoided if proper diligence had been exercised by all involved parties from start-to-finish