In MCILVAINE v. COXE'S LESSEE, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a dispute between two parties over land rights in Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, McIlvaine, argued that he had inherited certain lands from his father and was entitled to possession of them; however, Coxe's Lessee claimed they held title to those same lands through a grant from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court ultimately ruled in favor of McIlvaine on grounds that Coxe's Lessee did not have valid title because their grant was issued after passage of an act which prohibited such grants being made without consent from Congress or other competent authority. This decision established important precedent for determining ownership disputes involving conflicting claims based on state laws versus federal statutes.

In MCILVAINE v. COXE'S LESSEE, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a lessee of land had the right to take possession of coal underlying that land without compensating the owner. The majority opinion held that such an action did not constitute trespass and thus no compensation was due from the lessee. Justice Chase dissented, arguing that taking possession of another's property is always a trespass unless it has been authorized by law or contract between parties. He further argued that since there were no laws authorizing this particular act nor any agreement between parties allowing for it, then taking possession constituted trespass and therefore should be compensated accordingly. In conclusion, Justice Chase maintained his position on private property rights in dissenting against the majority opinion in this case; he believed owners should be compensated when their property is taken without permission regardless if they are aware or unaware of its use at any given time.