In the case of Henry Oelricks and Gustav W. Lurman v. Benjamin Ford, the plaintiffs in error argued that they had a right to possession of certain real estate located in St Louis County, Missouri. The defendants claimed that they were entitled to the property by virtue of an act passed by Congress granting them title to it. The Supreme Court held that although Congress had granted title to the land, this did not give them exclusive rights over it as there was no evidence showing any intention on their part for such purpose; thus, since both parties could show valid titles for ownership of said property, neither party could be given preference over another and so judgment was entered against both parties with costs assessed against each one equally.

In the case of Henry Oelricks and Gustav W. Lurman v. Benjamin Ford, the dissenting opinion argued that the lower court had erred in its decision to grant a new trial on grounds that there was no evidence presented at trial to support it. The dissent argued that although some testimony may have been excluded by the lower court, this did not mean that all relevant evidence was excluded from consideration or prevented from being heard by jurors. Furthermore, even if some of the testimony was improperly admitted into evidence, this would not necessarily warrant a new trial as such an action could be considered an abuse of discretion on behalf of the judge presiding over the case. As such, they concluded that granting a new trial based solely on these grounds without any other supporting facts or legal reasoning would be unjustified and should therefore be reversed by higher courts.