In the case of Kirk and Others v. Smith, Plaintiffs in Error brought a suit against Defendant in Error for trespass on their land. The plaintiffs argued that they had been dispossessed from their property without due process or compensation by the defendant's predecessor-in-title. The Supreme Court found that while there was evidence to support the plaintiff's claims, it did not rise to the level required for an actionable claim under common law principles of trespass. As such, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs who were thus denied relief from damages caused by wrongful possession of their lands.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that prohibited non-citizens from owning land within its borders violated the Constitution. The majority opinion held that such laws were constitutional and did not violate any of the protections provided by either federal or state constitutions. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision and argued that these types of laws infringed upon an individual's right to own property without interference from government entities. He further argued that while states have broad powers when it comes to regulating their citizens' activities, they do not have unlimited power over those who are not citizens of their respective states. Thus, he concluded that prohibiting non-citizens from owning land within a particular state is unconstitutional as it violates an individual's natural rights under both federal and state constitutions.