This US Supreme Court case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of real estate. The plaintiffs, Keyes and another, claimed that they had purchased the property from the defendants, Grant and another, and that they had paid the full purchase price. The defendants, however, argued that the plaintiffs had not paid the full purchase price and that they were still owed money. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that they had paid the full purchase price and that the defendants had no further claim to the property. The Court also held that the defendants had no right to seek damages from the plaintiffs for any alleged breach of contract. The Court's decision established that the plaintiffs had a valid and enforceable contract with the defendants and that the defendants had no right to seek damages from the plaintiffs.

In the case of Keyes & Another v. Grant & Another, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have found for the plaintiffs on their claim to title by adverse possession. He noted that under California law, if someone occupies land with an intention to possess it and does so openly and notoriously for five years or more without interruption from anyone else claiming ownership of the property, then they can acquire title through adverse possession. In this case, there was evidence presented showing that both parties had been living on different parts of the same lot since 1867; however, no one had ever disputed either party's right to occupy until after 1872 when a third party attempted to purchase part of it from Grant. Justice Field concluded that because neither plaintiff nor defendant were aware at any point prior to 1872 that anyone other than themselves held legal title over any portion of this lot - despite having lived there continuously since before 1870 - they should be allowed to keep what they believed was theirs all along: full ownership via adverse possession.