This case was a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Ohio. The plaintiff, Irwin, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Williar, in 1845. Williar, however, argued that he had never sold the land to Irwin and that he still owned it. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Irwin, finding that he had indeed purchased the land from Williar in 1845. The Court based its decision on the fact that Irwin had paid Williar for the land and had taken possession of it. Furthermore, the Court noted that Williar had not taken any action to reclaim the land until 1867, more than 20 years after the sale. The Court also found that Irwin had made improvements to the land and had paid taxes on it, further demonstrating his ownership. In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that Irwin had purchased the land from Williar in 1845 and that Williar had no legal claim to the land. The Court thus ruled in favor of Irwin and upheld his ownership of the land.

In Irwin v. Williar & Another, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment of an Ohio court could be enforced in New York. The majority opinion held that it could not, as the Ohio court lacked jurisdiction over one of the parties involved in the case and thus its judgment was void. Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that even if there were jurisdictional issues with respect to one party, such issues should not affect enforcement of judgments against other parties who had been properly served; secondly, he argued that under principles of comity between states - which is based upon mutual respect for each other's laws - New York should enforce valid judgments rendered by courts within another state unless they are clearly contrary to public policy or violate some fundamental principle of justice. He concluded by stating his belief that "the great interests at stake require us to sustain rather than defeat" valid judgments issued by foreign courts.