Alexander Finlay and John Mitchell brought a case against William King's Lessee in the Supreme Court. The dispute was over land that had been granted to Finlay and Mitchell by the state of Virginia, but which King claimed he owned through a lease from another party. In their argument before the court, Finlay and Mitchell argued that they were entitled to full title of the property because it had been legally granted to them by Virginia prior to any claim made by King. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Finlay and Mitchell, ruling that since they held legal title at the time of Kings' lease agreement, his claim did not supersede theirs. This decision established an important precedent for future cases involving disputes between private parties over ownership rights based on conflicting claims or titles issued by different states or governments.

In Alexander Finlay and John Mitchell, Plaintiffs in Error vs. William King's Lessee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee of land had the right to use it for purposes other than those specified in his lease. The majority opinion held that he did not have such rights; however, Justice Story dissented from this decision. He argued that when an individual leases property with no restrictions on its use or purpose stated explicitly in the contract, then they should be allowed to make reasonable uses of it as long as these do not interfere with their obligations under the agreement. Furthermore, Story contended that any attempt by either party to restrict what could be done on leased land would constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade and thus violate public policy considerations. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that if there were no explicit terms restricting how leased property could be used then both parties should have freedom within reasonableness limits regarding its utilization without fear of legal repercussions or violation of public policy principles