Cornelius Kanouse brought a case against John M. Martin in the Supreme Court of Illinois, claiming that he had been wrongfully evicted from his property by Martin. The court found that Kanouse was not entitled to possession of the land because he did not have legal title or any other right to it and therefore could not be considered an owner for purposes of eviction. Furthermore, they determined that even if Kanouse had some kind of equitable interest in the land, such as through adverse possession or prescription, this would still be insufficient grounds for him to claim ownership since there was no evidence presented at trial which showed that he had ever taken actual physical control over it. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Martin and denied relief to Kanouse on all counts.

In the case of Cornelius Kanouse v. John M. Martin, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process under the law and should be granted relief from his debt to Martin. He noted that there was no evidence presented at trial to prove that Kanouse had ever agreed to pay any money or property as part of an agreement with Martin, nor was there proof of any consideration for such an agreement between them. Furthermore, he argued that even if it could be proven that some form of contract existed between them, it would still have been void because it lacked sufficient consideration on both sides and did not meet all legal requirements for enforceability. As such, Justice McLean concluded by stating his belief that justice demanded a reversal of judgment against Kanouse and remandment back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with due process rights afforded him under law.