William M. Gwin sued James W. Breedlove for trespass and damages to his property in the Supreme Court of Mississippi. The dispute arose when Breedlove, a tenant on Gwin's land, cut down trees without permission from Gwin or any other authority figure. In response to this action, Gwin sought an injunction against Breedlove as well as compensation for the damage done to his property by cutting down the trees without consent. Ultimately, the court found that although there was no express agreement between them regarding timber rights on the leased premises, it was impliedly understood that such rights were reserved by Gwin and thus he had a right to seek redress from Breedlove’s actions in trespassing upon his land and damaging it through unauthorized tree-cutting activities. As such, they ruled in favor of William M. Gwin awarding him damages for trespass committed by James W Breelove on his property due to cutting down trees without permission or authorization from either party involved

In the case of William M. Gwin v. James W. Breedlove, Justice Catron delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider certain facts and evidence presented during trial that would have supported Gwin’s claim for damages against Breedlove. He noted that there was sufficient proof offered at trial to demonstrate that Breedlove had acted negligently when he sold an inferior horse to Gwin, and thus should be held liable for any losses suffered by him as a result of this transaction. Furthermore, Catron argued that even if it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt whether or not Breedlove knew about the horse's condition prior to selling it, his failure to exercise due diligence in ascertaining its quality constituted negligence on his part and therefore made him responsible for any harm caused by his actions. Finally, Catron concluded by stating that while courts must always strive towards fairness when deciding cases such as these, they must also take into account all available evidence before making their final judgment – something which he felt the majority had failed to do in this instance