Anna M. Mason, widow of John Mason, and their children James M., Eilbreck, Murray, Maynadier, Barlow and Sarah M., wife of Samuel Cooper; Sidney S. Lee and his wife; Cecilius C. Jameson and Catherine his wife (collectively referred to as the Plaintiffs in Error) brought a case against Joseph N. Fearson before the US Supreme Court. The Plaintiffs were heirs or devisees of John Mason who had passed away prior to this dispute arising over land ownership rights between them and Fearson which was located in Washington County Maryland near Antietam Creek known as "Mason's Island". In this case they argued that Fearson did not have legal title to the property due to an alleged fraudulent deed from one William Haines claiming he owned it when he actually did not possess any such right or authority over it at all since it belonged solely to John Mason's estate upon his death according to law at that time period in history. Ultimately after much deliberation by the court on both sides' arguments presented during trial proceedings with evidence provided for review by each party involved here -the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Anna M., her children & other co-plaintiff heirs/devisees awarding them rightful possession & control over said disputed real estate property now known today as “Mason’s Island” located near Antietam Creek within Washington County Maryland .

In the case of Anna M. Mason, Widow, and John Mason et al v Joseph N. Fearson, the plaintiffs in error argued that they were entitled to a tract of land located in Washington County Maryland based on an 1802 deed from their ancestor John Mason to his son James. The defendants argued that this deed was invalid as it had not been recorded within one year after its execution as required by law at the time. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the defendant's argument and held that since there was no proof of recordation within one year after its execution, the deed was void and did not convey any title or interest in real estate to James Mason or his heirs. In dissent however Justice McLean stated that although he agreed with much of what had been said by Chief Justice Taney regarding recording statutes being strictly construed against those claiming under them; he felt compelled to point out certain facts which showed substantial compliance with such laws despite non-recordation within one year due to circumstances beyond their control such as war or other public calamity preventing access for recordation purposes during this period.