In Lindenberger et al. v. Beall, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an agreement between two parties concerning land in Maryland. The plaintiffs, Lindenberger and others, had agreed to purchase certain tracts of land from defendant Beall for $1,000 each; however they were unable to make payment due to financial difficulties caused by the War of 1812. They subsequently asked for additional time to pay off their debt but Beall refused and instead sought foreclosure on all three tracts of land involved in the contract. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that since there was no evidence that either party intended any other consequence than what was stated in their original agreement – namely that if payment could not be made then title would revert back to Beall – then he was entitled to foreclose on all three tracts as per his rights under Maryland law at the time.

In the case of Lindenberger et al. v. Beall, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds. He believed that because there was no clear precedent for this type of case, it would be unfair to deny appellants their right to an appeal and thus deprive them of justice due to technicalities. Furthermore, he noted that if they were denied their right to an appeal then any decision made by lower courts could never be overturned or reviewed by higher courts regardless of how unjust or erroneous it may have been. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall asserted his belief that appeals should only be dismissed when there is a clear legal basis for doing so and not simply as a matter of convenience or expediency.