In this Supreme Court case, Josiah Lewis, Frances Lewis and William Rawle (executors of the estate of William Lewis), Margaret Agaid, Louisa Agaid, Lewis H. Conover (heirs of said Lewis) and Richard Willing, Eliza M. Willing, Thos. Wiling and Geo. C. Willing (heirs of Charles Willing) appealed against Humphrey Marshall et al., appellees in a dispute over land ownership rights in Kentucky that had been granted to them by Virginia prior to its statehood admission into the Union as part of the Northwest Territory cession agreement with Congress in 1784-1786. The court ultimately ruled that since Kentucky was not yet a state at the time when it received these grants from Virginia they were invalid under federal law; however it also held that those who had already settled on or improved such lands should be allowed to remain there until their claims could be adjudicated according to local laws once Kentucky became a state two years later in 1792 .

In the dissenting opinion of this US Supreme Court case, Justice McLean argued that the Appellants had a valid claim to land in Kentucky and Virginia which was granted by Congress. He believed that they were entitled to compensation for their losses due to the actions of Humphrey Marshall, Jacob Feebeck, John Fowler and others who had unlawfully taken possession of it. Furthermore, he stated that since these individuals had been in possession for so long without any legal title or right from either state government or federal authority, they should be held accountable for damages caused by their wrongful occupation. In conclusion, Justice McLean asserted that justice demanded restitution on behalf of those whose rights have been violated.