In the case of Elmendorf v. Taylor and Others, appellant Elijah Elmendorf sued respondents for trespass on his land in Kentucky. The dispute arose when a surveyor hired by the respondents mistakenly surveyed part of Elmendorf's land as belonging to them. In response, Elmendorf brought suit against them seeking damages for their trespass onto his property. The Supreme Court held that while it was true that the surveyor had made an error in surveying the land, this did not absolve the respondents from liability since they were aware of their mistake but still proceeded with taking possession of it anyway without obtaining permission from its rightful owner first. Furthermore, even if there had been no mistake at all on behalf of either party involved in this case, under common law principles established prior to Kentucky statehood such actions would have constituted a trespass regardless due to lack of consent or authority given by any other means beforehand. As such, judgment was rendered in favor of Elijah Elmendorf and he was awarded damages accordingly for having suffered loss due to respondent’s unlawful entry onto his property without authorization or permission granted beforehand

In the case of Elmendorf v. Taylor and Others, appellant Elijah Elmendorf argued that he was entitled to a portion of land in New York State based on his father's will. The respondents, who were tenants occupying the land at issue, argued that they had acquired title to it through adverse possession. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the respondents and held that their claim of adverse possession was valid due to their long-term occupancy and cultivation of the property for more than twenty years without any interference from anyone claiming ownership rights over it. Justice Story wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that although there may have been some evidence supporting an inference of hostile intent by those occupying the property, this did not necessarily mean they intended to take exclusive control over it or exclude all others from doing so as well; thus, according to him, there was insufficient proof for establishing title via adverse possession under New York law at that time. He further noted how such a ruling would be unfair since Elmendorf had no knowledge or notice about what happened until after many years had passed when he attempted to assert his legal right as heir under his father's will.