George W. Watterston brought a case against Andrew M. Payne to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1857, claiming that he had been wrongfully evicted from his property by Payne and was seeking damages for trespass and ejectment. The court found that although there were some discrepancies between what each party claimed, it could not be determined who was right or wrong based on the evidence presented at trial; therefore, they ruled in favor of Payne as no proof had been provided to support Watterston's claims. Furthermore, they held that even if one party did have a better claim than another over an estate dispute such as this one, it would still be necessary for them to prove their rights before any judgment could be made in their favor. This ruling established precedent which is still followed today when determining ownership disputes: both parties must provide sufficient evidence proving their respective claims before any decision can be reached regarding who has rightful possession of land or other real estate properties.

In the case of George W. Watterston v. Andrew M. Payne, Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have reversed the decision of the lower court and instead should have allowed it to stand as is. He believed that there was sufficient evidence presented by both parties to support their respective positions and thus no reason for an appellate review or reversal of judgment on this matter. Furthermore, he noted that even if some errors had been made by either party during trial proceedings, they were minor enough such that they did not warrant overturning a verdict already reached after careful consideration from all sides involved in this dispute over property rights between two individuals living in New York State at the time.