In Ruel Gridley, Clarissa H. Beebe, Sarah P. Snyder and Charles Snyder v Edwin S. Westbrook and James P. Guager, the appellants were challenging a decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio which had denied their claim to certain land in that state on the basis that they did not have legal title to it due to an earlier deed having been issued for it prior to them obtaining possession of it through adverse possession laws. The U.S Supreme Court affirmed this ruling as they found no evidence presented by the appellants showing any fraud or mistake in regards to how they obtained title over said property from its original owners; thus upholding Ohio's decision denying their claim based on lack of legal ownership rights over said land despite being able possessory rights over it for some time before being challenged legally by another party with superior title claims than theirs'.

In Ruel Gridley, Clarissa H. Beebe, Sarah P. Snyder and Charles Snyder v Edwin S. Westbrook and James P Guager, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a deed of trust executed by the appellants in favor of Westbrook and Guager had been validly discharged or not. The majority opinion held that it had been properly discharged; however Justice Grier dissented on this point as he believed that there were certain facts which should have prevented its discharge from taking effect until all parties involved had agreed to it in writing. He argued that since no such agreement existed between the parties at issue here, then the deed could not be considered legally discharged under existing law at the time of its execution. Furthermore, he noted that even if an oral agreement did exist between them regarding its discharge - which was never proven - then such an arrangement would still be invalid due to lack of written evidence confirming their understanding with regards to said matter