James Jackson, ex dem. of Martha Bradstreet brought a case against Henry Huntington in the Supreme Court. The dispute was over a tract of land located in New York that had been purchased by James from Martha's father, William Bradstreet. In 1824, William conveyed the property to James for $1,000 and gave him possession of it; however he did not record the deed until after his death in 1827. After this time Henry claimed title to part of the land based on an earlier deed given by William to another party which included some overlapping territory with James' purchase. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that since James had taken possession prior to recording his deed and paid full consideration for it at that time, he should be considered rightful owner despite any conflicting claims made afterwards due to unrecorded deeds or other circumstances beyond his control.

In the case of James Jackson, ex dem. Of Martha Bradstreet v. Henry Huntington, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and two other justices. He argued that the court should not have dismissed the plaintiff's writ of error because it was filed within one year after judgment had been rendered in favor of defendant Huntington. According to Justice Story, this time limit is provided for by statute and should be strictly adhered to regardless of any technicalities or irregularities in filing procedure which may exist with respect to such writs. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some procedural errors made by plaintiff's counsel they did not prejudice defendant Huntington since he had full knowledge about them prior to trial and could have raised objections at that time but chose not too do so instead waiting until after judgment was entered before raising his objections thus depriving plaintiff from having an opportunity for review or appeal as provided under law.