Granville S. Oldfield brought a case against William H. Marriott in the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that he had been wrongfully evicted from his home by Marriott and was seeking damages for it. The court found that Oldfield had not proven any malicious intent on behalf of Marriott, but rather that he acted out of what he believed to be an honest mistake regarding ownership rights over the property in question. As such, they ruled in favor of Marriott and dismissed Oldfield's claim without awarding him any damages or compensation for his eviction from his home. This decision set a precedent which established that individuals must prove malicious intent when bringing cases against another party if they wish to receive monetary compensation as part of their settlement agreement with them.

In the dissenting opinion of Granville S. Oldfield v. William H. Marriott, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff had a valid claim to ownership of certain property in dispute and should have been awarded damages for trespass by the defendant. He noted that while there was evidence presented at trial regarding an agreement between both parties, it was not clear enough to establish title or possession in either party's favor and thus did not provide sufficient grounds for dismissal of the case as decided by majority opinion. Furthermore, he asserted that even if no such agreement existed, this would still be insufficient reason to deny recovery since there were other facts which could support a finding of legal title on behalf of Oldfield; namely his long-term occupancy and use of said land prior to any claims made by Marriott. In conclusion, Justice McLean concluded that Oldfield should have been given relief from trespass based on these facts alone regardless whether or not an actual contract existed between them as alleged by Marriott