This case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a slave. The plaintiff, Emerson, was a citizen of Missouri and the defendant, Senter, was a citizen of Tennessee. Emerson had purchased the slave from a third party, but Senter claimed that the slave was his property. Emerson brought the case to the Supreme Court in order to determine the rightful owner of the slave. The Supreme Court held that the slave belonged to Senter. The Court reasoned that the slave had been taken from Tennessee to Missouri without Senter's consent, and that the slave had been held in Missouri for a period of time without Senter's knowledge. The Court also noted that the slave had been purchased from a third party without Senter's knowledge or consent. The Court concluded that Senter had a superior right to the slave, and that Emerson had no right to the slave. The Court also held that Emerson was entitled to be reimbursed for the purchase price of the slave, as well as any other expenses incurred in the purchase. The Court reasoned that Emerson had acted in good faith in purchasing the slave, and that he should not be held liable for any losses incurred as a result of the dispute.

In Emerson (as Interpleader) v. Senter & Another, the Supreme Court was asked to decide who had a superior right of possession over certain property in dispute between two parties. The majority opinion held that one party had a superior right of possession and should be awarded the disputed property. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that both parties were equally entitled to possess the property and neither could claim superiority over it. He argued that since no evidence existed as to which party first acquired or possessed the land in question, there was no basis for deciding which party should have priority rights over it; thus, he concluded that both parties should share equal rights of possession with respect to said land.