John Den, Ex Dem. James B. Murray and John C. Kayser (Plaintiffs) brought a case against The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company (Defendant). Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant had wrongfully taken possession of certain lands in New Jersey which belonged to them as tenants-in-common with other persons who were not parties to the suit, but whose interests were represented by Defendants' counsel. The court held that since all of the interested parties were before it, they should be allowed to present their respective claims for determination without prejudice or favoritism towards any one party over another; thus allowing each tenant-in-common an equal opportunity to prove his claim in accordance with law and justice. Furthermore, it was determined that no person could be deprived of his right without due process of law being observed; therefore if any tenant's rights had been violated he would have a remedy at law for damages suffered thereby.

In the dissenting opinion of John Den, Ex Dem. James B. Murray and John C. Kayser v The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiffs had no legal right to bring a suit against the defendant for damages resulting from their alleged breach of contract as they had not been legally authorized by Congress to do so. He further stated that even if there was an implied obligation on behalf of the defendant to fulfill its contractual obligations, it could only be enforced through a court order or injunction rather than through monetary compensation for damages incurred by plaintiffs due to non-performance of said contract. In conclusion, Justice McLean concluded that since Congress did not grant permission for such suits in this case, it should have been dismissed without any consideration given towards awarding damages or other reliefs sought by Plaintiffs in their complaint against Defendant company.