In this case, Stephen O. Nelson, Ellison Banksmith, Henry C. Walker and Thomas A. Nelson (the appellants) were partners under the firm of S.O. Nelson & Co., who appealed a decision made by Lucius C Leland, John H Cooke and Duncan C Williams (the claimants). The dispute centered around ownership of the steamer Brigadier General R H Stokes which had been seized in 1858 for alleged violations of US neutrality laws during the Crimean War between Russia and England/France/Turkey alliance from 1853-1856; however no charges were ever brought against it or its owners at that time so it was released to them in October 1858 with all costs paid by them as well as damages for wrongful seizure amounting to $15000 plus interest due since July 1st 1859 when they first filed their claim against it in court . The claimants argued that they had acquired title to the vessel through an agreement with one of its former owners while appellants contended that such agreement was invalid because it violated public policy regarding neutral vessels being used for war purposes without permission from either belligerents involved in conflict - thus making any transfer null voidable ab initio . Ultimately Supreme Court sided with appellants ruling that claimant's contract was indeed illegal according public law doctrine established prior cases involving similar issues thereby affirming lower court’s decision awarding damages back original owner(s).

In the case of Stephen O. Nelson, Ellison Banksmith, Henry C. Walker and Thomas A. Nelson v Lucius C Leland, John H Cooke, Duncan C Williams and McRae Coffman & Co., the appellants argued that they had a valid claim to the steamboat Brigadier General R H Stokes due to their purchase of it from its previous owner in good faith without knowledge or notice of any prior claims on it by other parties. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument however as they found that there was sufficient evidence presented which showed that at least one party had given notice to all potential buyers about their existing claim on the boat before sale and thus invalidated any subsequent sales made after such notification was received. As such, despite being unaware of these prior claims when making their purchase in good faith, the court ruled against them as they were still deemed liable for not having taken proper steps to ensure no conflicting interests existed before entering into an agreement with another party regarding ownership rights over said property.