In the Supreme Court case of Sylvester B. Preston, William Kendall, William Nichols and William T. Phillips (Plaintiffs in Error) v Charles Bracken (Defendant), the Plaintiffs argued that they had a right to use certain land for their own purposes as it was part of an area granted by Congress to them under a treaty with the Choctaw Nation. The Defendant argued that he owned title to this same land due to his purchase from another party who also claimed ownership rights over it. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Plaintiffs, ruling that since they were given exclusive rights over this particular tract of land by Congress through its treaty with the Choctaw Nation, any other claims made against it are invalid and should be dismissed accordingly.

In the case of Sylvester B. Preston, William Kendall, William Nichols and William T. Phillips v Charles Bracken, the dissenting opinion was that the court should have granted a new trial to plaintiffs in error due to errors in jury instructions given by the judge at their original trial. The majority had held that there were no such errors and thus denied them a new trial; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly because he believed that certain evidence which could have been used to support plaintiff's claims was excluded from consideration during their original trial; secondly because he felt it was improper for jurors to be instructed as they were regarding how they should consider said evidence when making their final verdicts. In conclusion, Justice McLean argued that these issues warranted granting plaintiffs in error a new trial so as not to deny them justice or violate any legal principles of fair play.