This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the lessees of Robert Grignon, Peter B. Grignon, and Morgan L. Martin (plaintiffs in error) and John J. Astor, Ramsay Crooks, Robert Stuart, and Linns Thompson (defendants). The plaintiffs argued that they had been granted permission to occupy certain lands by the United States government; however this was disputed by the defendants who claimed that they were entitled to possession of those same lands under an earlier grant from Great Britain prior to American independence. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants on grounds that their title was validly acquired before any claim could be made by the plaintiffs under U.S law or treaty with Great Britain. This decision established precedent for recognizing pre-existing titles held by individuals prior to American independence as valid claims against later grants issued after America's separation from British rule

In the dissenting opinion of Lessee of Robert Grignon, Peter B. Grignon, and Morgan L. Martin v John J. Astor, Ramsay Crooks, Robert Stuart and Linns Thompson (1844), Justice McLean argued that the original treaty between the United States government and the Menominee Indians did not grant exclusive rights to trade with them to any particular individuals or companies; rather it was a general right granted to all citizens of the United States who wished to do so. He further argued that if Congress had intended for certain individuals or companies to have exclusive trading privileges with Native American tribes they would have done so explicitly in their legislation granting such privileges. Therefore he concluded that since no explicit language existed in either treaty or statute granting exclusive trading rights then none should be implied by judicial interpretation as doing so would violate both constitutional principles as well as public policy considerations regarding Indian affairs which are best left up to Congress alone.