This Supreme Court case involved Morgan B. Hinkle, in his own right and as administrator de bonis non of John Fisher, deceased, who was the complainant and appellant. The defendants were Moses Wanzer, James F. Johnson, and John S. Hunter. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties for the sale of certain lands located in Ohio which had been owned by Fisher prior to his death; however it was not completed until after he passed away due to complications with title issues that needed resolution before closing could occur. Hinkle argued that Wanzer et al., should be held liable for any losses incurred during this period due to their failure to complete the transaction on time while they countered that no damages were suffered since there was no breach of contract or negligence on their part as all necessary steps had been taken towards resolving title issues within a reasonable amount of time given the circumstances at hand. Ultimately it was determined by the court that although some delay did occur in completing this transaction due to difficulties with obtaining clear title over these properties, such delays were unavoidable under those particular conditions and thus neither party could be held responsible for any losses resulting from them; therefore dismissing Hinkle's claim against Wanzer et al., without prejudice accordingly

In Morgan B. Hinkle, In His Own Right, and as Administrator De Bonis Non of John Fisher, Deceased v. Moses Wanzer, James F. Johnson and John S. Hunter (1854), the dissenting opinion argued that the court should have found in favor of the complainant and appellant because they had established a prima facie case for their claim to title by producing evidence from reliable sources such as deeds or other documents showing prior possession of land in dispute with clear boundaries described therein; however, this was not enough to convince a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who instead held that it was insufficient proof since there were no witnesses present at trial who could testify to having seen any actual boundary lines being marked out on the ground or otherwise physically delineated between properties owned by each party involved in this case. The dissenters believed that if such evidence had been presented then it would have been sufficient to prove ownership rights over disputed lands without requiring further testimony from witnesses about what they may have observed while visiting these locations themselves - thus making it unnecessary for them to travel long distances just so they could appear before court proceedings taking place far away from where these events actually occurred originally.