Davis B. Lawler, Timothy Walker, Stephen S. L'Hommedieu, George Graham, John S. Harrison and Jacob Burnet were plaintiffs in error in a case against James H. and John Walker. The dispute was over the ownership of certain lands located near Cincinnati that had been granted to them by the state of Ohio for military services during the Revolutionary War as well as other grants from Congress under an act passed in 1820 known as "The Donation Act". The Walkers claimed title to these lands based on their own grant from Congress which they argued superseded any prior grants made by either Ohio or Congress itself; however, the plaintiffs argued that this later grant did not invalidate their earlier rights since it was only intended to supplement existing claims rather than replace them entirely. After much deliberation and review of both sides’ arguments regarding property law principles such as laches (unreasonable delay) and estoppel (preventing one party from denying something previously accepted), the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Lawler et al., finding that their original claim was valid despite any subsequent grants issued after theirs had already been established

In Davis B. Lawler, et al v. James H. and John Walker, the dissenting opinion argued that the lower court's decision should be reversed because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a contract between the parties involved in this case. The dissent argued that under Ohio law at the time, contracts must be interpreted according to their plain language and not by any extrinsic evidence or parol testimony offered by either party to support their respective positions in this dispute over land ownership rights. Furthermore, they contended that since there was no ambiguity present in the contract itself as written by both parties, then it could not be construed otherwise than its literal meaning which would have been favorable for plaintiffs-in-error (Lawler et al). Therefore, they concluded that due to these facts alone – along with other errors made during trial proceedings – reversal of judgment from below should occur so justice can prevail accordingly for all involved parties here today.