Lessee of Joseph Marlatt, Plaintiff in Error v. John Silk and John M'Donald was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1837. The plaintiff had leased land from Joseph Marlatt for an indefinite period with no fixed rent or term of years. After some time, the defendants entered into possession of the same land without any title from Marlatt and refused to vacate it when requested by the plaintiff. The court held that although there was no express agreement between them as to duration or amount of rent, yet they were bound by implication to pay reasonable compensation for their use and occupation until such time as either party should give notice that he wished to terminate it; otherwise they would be guilty of trespass on his property rights. Furthermore, since there was no evidence presented showing what constituted a reasonable rental value for this particular piece of land at that time, damages could not be awarded against them unless further proof is provided at trial regarding its fair market value during their occupancy period.

In the case of Lessee of Joseph Marlatt, Plaintiff in Error v. John Silk and John M'Donald, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and Justices McLean and Wayne. He argued that the decision to grant a new trial should have been left up to the discretion of the court below as they were more familiar with all aspects of this particular case than those at Supreme Court level. The majority had ruled that there was sufficient evidence presented by Marlatt's counsel during his initial trial which would have allowed him to recover damages if it had been properly considered by jurors; however, Taney disagreed with this assessment as he believed that no such evidence existed. Furthermore, he felt that even if some evidence did exist it could not be used retroactively since it was not available when Marlatt originally brought his suit against Silk and McDonald. Ultimately, Taney concluded that granting a new trial would set an undesirable precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances where courts may be inclined to overturn decisions based solely on newly discovered facts or information rather than considering all relevant factors from both sides before making their ruling.