Joseph H. Dulles, Edward Wilcox, and John Welsh were plaintiffs in error against Richard S. Jones in a Supreme Court case from 1850. The three men had been convicted of larceny by the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia after they stole goods from a store owned by Jones. On appeal to the Supreme Court, their conviction was affirmed on grounds that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support it beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that even if some of the testimony given during trial was not credible or reliable enough to be admitted as evidence under normal circumstances, its admission did not constitute reversible error because it did not prejudice any substantial rights of either party involved in this case. Ultimately, Joseph H Dulles', Edward Wilcox's and John Welsh's convictions were upheld due to lack of legal errors committed during their original trials and insufficient proof provided by them for overturning those convictions on appeal before the Supreme Court

In the case of Joseph H. Dulles, Edward Wilcox, and John Welsh v. Richard S. Jones, the plaintiffs argued that they had a right to use certain land in Pennsylvania for mining purposes as granted by an earlier deed from 1793. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that the deed was void because it violated a state law passed in 1822 which prohibited such uses of land without permission from the legislature or other authority figure. The dissent argued that while there may have been some technical violations of state laws regarding mineral rights at issue here, these were not sufficient to invalidate what would otherwise be considered valid contracts between parties who had acted in good faith reliance on them for many years prior to their being declared illegal by subsequent legislation or court decisions. Furthermore, since no one was harmed by any alleged violation here and all parties involved benefited from its enforcement over time - including both those who owned property adjacent to where mining took place as well as those engaged in it - then justice should prevail and allow these agreements to stand despite their technically being contrary to current legal requirements