Charles Gratiot was the plaintiff in error and The United States were defendants in error. This case concerned a dispute over land titles between Charles Gratiot, who had purchased two tracts of land from the U.S., and another individual, John Biddle, who claimed to have prior title to one of those tracts. The Supreme Court held that Gratiot's purchase was valid because he had acted in good faith when purchasing it from the government; however, since Biddle also possessed a valid title to his tract at the time of sale by the government, he could not be deprived of it without compensation for its value. Therefore, while upholding Gratiot's claim on his own tract as validly acquired through purchase from the U.S., they ordered that Biddle should receive payment for his property if he chose to relinquish it or alternatively be allowed access to both properties with an equitable division between them agreed upon by both parties involved.

In the case of Charles Gratiot v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a private citizen against another private citizen for damages caused by negligence in failing to properly construct and maintain a levee on his own land that resulted in flooding of neighboring lands owned by the plaintiff. Justice McLean delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that Congress did not intend for such cases to be heard in federal courts because they are matters traditionally left up to state law and do not involve any questions regarding national sovereignty or other issues within federal purview. He further argued that allowing such suits would open up too many potential claims from individuals seeking compensation for damage done due to negligence, which could lead to significant financial burden on defendants who may have acted reasonably under existing circumstances but still found themselves liable due solely their failure meet some arbitrary standard set forth by Congress or imposed through judicial interpretation of common law principles. Ultimately, he concluded that it is better left up states determine how best handle these types of disputes without interference from Washington D.C., as this will ensure greater uniformity across jurisdictions while also protecting citizens' rights more effectively than if each individual case were decided based upon its own merits before a single tribunal with no local ties or knowledge about applicable laws and customs