This Supreme Court case involved a dispute over the ownership of land in Ohio. The appellants, M'Cormick and his wife, argued that they had purchased the land from one William Sullivant who was not authorized to sell it. The respondents were heirs of William Sullivant's father and claimed title to the property through him. The court found that there was no evidence that either party had any legal right or interest in the disputed property at issue, as neither could produce a valid deed for it. Furthermore, since both parties agreed that William Sullivant did not have authority to convey title to them, he could not be considered an owner with rights capable of being transferred by sale or otherwise. As such, neither party held superior claim over the other and thus their respective claims were dismissed without prejudice.

In the case of M'Cormick and Wife and Others v. Sullivant and Others, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted an injunction to prevent the sale of land by Sullivant as it was not necessary for justice to be done. He reasoned that if there were any legal rights or interests at stake, they could be protected through other means such as damages or specific performance rather than an injunction. Furthermore, Marshall noted that granting injunctions would lead to uncertainty about when they are appropriate since courts must consider whether irreparable harm will result from denying them; this is especially true in cases involving real estate where damage can often be remedied with money alone. Ultimately, he concluded that while equity may sometimes require injunctive relief in certain circumstances, this was not one of those cases given its facts and therefore no injunction should have been issued.