This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the lessee of Margaret Lattimer and others (plaintiffs in error) and William Poteet (defendant in error). The plaintiffs argued that they had leased land from Lattimer, but Poteet claimed he was the rightful owner. The court found that while there were some discrepancies with regard to certain documents related to the lease agreement, it ultimately concluded that Poteet was not entitled to possession of the property as his title did not meet all requirements for legal ownership. Furthermore, since no other party could prove their claim on the property either, it ruled in favor of Lattimer's lessees. As such, this decision affirmed their right to possess and use said land according to their original lease agreement.

In the case of Lessee of Margaret Lattimer and Others v. William Poteet, the dissenting opinion argued that a deed from an individual to another should be considered valid even if it was not recorded in accordance with state law. The majority had ruled that such deeds were invalid because they had not been properly recorded, but the dissent disagreed, arguing that recording laws are intended to protect purchasers who have no knowledge or notice of prior conveyances; since both parties here knew about each other's interests in this property dispute, there was no need for protection through recording laws. Furthermore, according to the dissenters' interpretation of common law principles regarding title disputes between two individuals claiming rights over a piece of land - which is what this case involved - then either party could prove their claim by showing possession or proof thereof without having to rely on any recordation statute as evidence. Thus, while recognizing that states may enact statutes requiring certain documents related to real estate transactions be filed for public records purposes so as to provide third-party purchasers with some assurance when buying land from strangers (which is why most states have enacted such statutes), these same rules do not apply when two individuals already know about each other’s interest in a particular piece of property and thus do not require additional protection through recordation requirements.