Henry Miller was the plaintiff in error in this Supreme Court case. He brought a suit against David Austen, William S. Wilmerding, and David Austen Jr., claiming that they had wrongfully taken possession of his property and were refusing to return it or pay him for its value. The defendants argued that Miller's claim was invalid because he did not have legal title to the property when he filed his complaint. The Supreme Court disagreed with the defendants' argument, ruling that even though Miller lacked legal title at the time of filing, he still had an equitable right to recover damages from them due to their wrongful taking of his property without any compensation being paid for it. This decision established important precedent regarding how courts should treat cases involving claims based on equitable rights rather than those based solely on legal titles or documents.

In the case of Henry Miller v. David Austen, William S. Wilmerding, and David Austen Jr., the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written if it is clear and unambiguous in its terms. The majority had held that because one party to the contract had not performed his part of the agreement within a reasonable time frame, he could no longer enforce it against another party who had already partially fulfilled their obligations under said agreement. The dissent argued that this interpretation would allow for contracts to be rendered void due to delays on either side without any consideration given to whether or not those delays were justified by circumstances beyond either party's control; such an interpretation would undermine public confidence in contractual agreements and lead people away from entering into them altogether out of fear they may become unenforceable at some point down the line regardless of fault or negligence on their part.