Isaac Hartshorn and Daniel Hayward, plaintiffs in error, brought a case against Horace H. Day for the wrongful possession of certain real estate located in New York State. The plaintiffs argued that they had purchased the property from an individual who was not authorized to sell it; therefore, their title was invalid. The defendant countered by arguing that he had obtained legal title to the land through adverse possession and should be allowed to keep it. After hearing both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Day on grounds that his claim of adverse possession was valid under New York law at the time. This decision established a precedent which held that if someone has been occupying another's land openly and continuously for 10 years or more without any objection from its rightful owner then they can obtain legal title over said property via adverse possession regardless of how they initially acquired it.

In the case of Isaac Hartshorn and Daniel Hayward v. Horace H. Day, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of any subsequent changes in circumstances or law. The majority had ruled that an agreement between Hartshorn and Hayward for payment on a promissory note was unenforceable due to intervening legislation which prohibited such agreements from being made without consideration; however, the dissent argued that this did not render the original contract void as it had already been executed before said legislation came into effect. Furthermore, they maintained that if contracts were rendered invalid by every change in circumstance or law then no one would ever enter into them with confidence since their validity could never be guaranteed over time. As such, they concluded that while new laws may affect future contracts they cannot retroactively alter existing ones and thus must still be honored despite any intervening changes in legal status quo.