Francis Henderson and his wife brought a case against Ira Griffin to the Supreme Court. The Hendersons had purchased land from Griffin in 1827, but when they attempted to take possession of it, they found that another party was already living on the property. The Hendersons argued that this constituted fraud on behalf of Griffin as he had failed to disclose this information prior to their purchase. In response, Griffin claimed that he did not know about the other occupant before selling them the land and thus could not be held liable for any wrongdoing. After hearing both sides’ arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Henderson and his wife; finding that even if there was no actual knowledge or intent by Griffin at fault, failing to inform potential buyers about existing occupants still constituted fraudulent behavior under common law principles.

In the case of Francis Henderson and wife vs. Ira Griffin, the dissenting opinion argued that a husband's right to his wife's property was not absolute. The court had previously held that when a married woman owned land prior to her marriage, she retained ownership of it during the marriage and could dispose of it as she saw fit without interference from her husband. In this particular case, however, the defendant argued that he should have been able to purchase some land belonging to Mrs. Henderson because he was her husband and thus had an interest in all of her property by law. The dissent disagreed with this argument on two grounds: firstly, they believed there were no laws which gave husbands such rights; secondly, even if such laws did exist they would be unconstitutional since they violated both common law principles and natural justice by allowing one person (the husband) control over another person’s (the wife’s) property without their consent or knowledge. Ultimately then, while recognizing that husbands may have certain rights regarding their wives' properties under certain circumstances - for example if those properties are acquired after marriage - in this instance the dissent found no legal basis for Mr Griffin's claim against Mrs Henderson's pre-marriage holdings