This US Supreme Court case involves Junius K. Horsburg, the devisee of James Henderson, and Martin Baker and Hannah his wife, Francis Clark, Robert Boyce and Peter Mason as guardian to Susannah R. Hamlett. The dispute is over a tract of land in Kentucky that was originally owned by James Henderson who devised it to Junius K. Horsburg upon his death. However, when the deed was delivered to Mr. Horsburg he found that two other individuals had already taken possession of the property claiming they were entitled to it under an earlier will made by Henderson's father-in-law which gave them title if certain conditions were met - one being that no will be made after 1790 which would have included any subsequent wills or devises from James Henderson himself regarding this particular piece of land in question here today before this court.. After much deliberation on both sides' claims for ownership rights over the disputed tract of land in Kentucky ,the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Mr.Horsburg due to lack sufficient evidence proving him rightful owner according tot he terms set forth within said earlier will from 1790 .

In the case of Junius K. Horsburg, devisee of James Henderson v. Martin Baker and Hannah his wife, Francis Clark, Robert Boyce and Peter Mason for himself and as guardian to Susannah R. Hamlett, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have reversed the judgment below because it was based on an erroneous construction of the will in question. He believed that under a fair interpretation of its terms there could be no doubt but that Horsburg had been entitled to recover from Baker et al., who were trustees appointed by Henderson's will with authority to sell certain lands therein mentioned for payment of debts due from him at his death; yet they had failed to do so despite being requested multiple times by Horsburg over several years prior to filing suit against them. In conclusion, Justice Story felt strongly that if this failure was not remedied then justice would not be served in this matter - thus necessitating reversal or modification of the lower court's decision accordingly.