This case was a dispute between George W. Frasher and others and O'Connor. Frasher and the other plaintiffs were the owners of a certain tract of land in California. They had obtained a patent from the United States for the land, and had been in possession of it for many years. O'Connor had also obtained a patent from the United States for the same land, and had been in possession of it for some time. The dispute between the parties was over which of them had the superior title to the land. The Supreme Court held that the title of the plaintiffs was superior to that of O'Connor. The Court found that the patent issued to the plaintiffs was the first in time, and that the patent issued to O'Connor was invalid because it was based on a survey that was not authorized by Congress. The Court also held that the plaintiffs had a valid claim to the land, and that O'Connor had no right to it.

In the case of George W. Frasher & Others v. O'Connor, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed executed by an individual in California prior to statehood could be enforced against his heirs after he died and California became a state. The majority opinion held that it could not, as such deeds were no longer enforceable under California law at the time of death due to changes in property laws since they were originally created. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that although there had been some changes in property law since the original deed was made, those changes did not invalidate its terms or render them unenforceable upon death. He argued that if these types of contracts are allowed to become void simply because of subsequent legislative action then all contracts would be subject to similar treatment and thus rendered insecure and unreliable for parties entering into them with any expectation of enforcement down the line.