Cornelius W. Lawrence brought a case against John Caswell and Solomon T. Caswell to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that he had been wrongfully ejected from land owned by them in New York State. The lower court found for the defendants on grounds that they were entitled to possession under an 1817 statute which allowed certain individuals who had purchased lands from Native Americans before 1788 to obtain title without further proof of purchase or payment. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that since Lawrence was not able to prove his own right of possession prior to 1788, he could not challenge the validity of any subsequent purchases made by others after that date. Furthermore, it held that even if such a challenge were possible, there was no evidence presented at trial which would have supported such a claim anyway; thus affirming the lower court's ruling in favor of John and Solomon T. Caswell

In the dissenting opinion of Cornelius W. Lawrence v. John Caswell and Solomon T. Caswell, Justice Grier argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case in court as he was unable to provide sufficient evidence for his claim of title over a piece of land located in Pennsylvania. The majority opinion held that because there were no deeds or other documents proving ownership, the defendant's possession should be considered valid until proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence from the plaintiff; however, Justice Grier disagreed with this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that it is not necessary for a party claiming title to produce documentary proof if they can show other forms of proof such as witnesses who have seen them take possession; secondly, he stated that even if documentary proof is required then it should only need to be established by preponderance rather than clear and convincing evidence since these are civil cases which do not involve criminal matters where higher standards may apply. Ultimately, Justice Grier concluded that while there was some doubt regarding ownership due to lack of documentation presented at trial, this did not necessarily mean victory for either side without further investigation into all available sources related to the dispute before making any final decisions about who has rightful title over said property.