David Moreland, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Jeremiah Page. The dispute was over the ownership of two slaves named Henry and Mary. Moreland claimed that he had purchased them from Page for $1,000 but never received title to the slaves. He argued that his possession of the slaves constituted an equitable title which should be recognized by law. However, Page contended that he had only agreed to sell them on condition that they would remain with him until certain debts were paid off; since those debts had not been paid yet, no sale could have taken place and thus Moreland did not own any legal or equitable rights to Henry and Mary. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Page because there was no evidence presented at trial showing a completed contract between both parties regarding the purchase of these two individuals as property; therefore it could not be said definitively who owned them legally or equitably under existing laws at this time.

In the case of David Moreland v. Jeremiah Page, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove his right to recover damages from the defendant for trespass on land. He noted that although it was established by evidence that there had been an agreement between them regarding use of certain lands, no proof was presented as to whether or not this agreement constituted a leasehold estate and if so, what its terms were. Furthermore, Justice McLean pointed out that even if such an estate existed and could be proven by competent evidence, it would still be necessary for the plaintiff to show title in himself before any recovery could be allowed against another party who has wrongfully entered upon his property. As such, he concluded that since no sufficient proof was offered with respect to either point at issue - i.e., existence of a leasehold estate or title in Moreland - judgment should have been rendered for Page instead of Moreland as decided by majority opinion