The City of Providence brought a case against Daniel R. Clapp, alleging that he had unlawfully taken possession of certain real estate within the city limits. The Supreme Court found in favor of Clapp, ruling that his title to the property was valid and enforceable under Rhode Island law. The court held that although the city charter prohibited individuals from taking possession of land without permission from the mayor or common council, this prohibition did not apply to Clapp because he had acquired his title through legal means prior to its enactment. Furthermore, it was determined that since no specific provision existed in either state or local laws prohibiting such an action by an individual with a valid deed for their property rights were protected under existing statutes and could not be revoked retroactively by subsequent legislation enacted by municipal authorities. As such, Clapp's claim was upheld and he retained ownership over his land despite any objections raised by Providence officials

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited any person from keeping or maintaining a "tippling house" within its limits applied to Daniel R. Clapp who had been convicted of violating it. The majority opinion held that the ordinance did apply and affirmed Clapp's conviction. However, Justice Curtis dissented on the grounds that there was no evidence presented at trial showing that Clapp kept such an establishment for purposes other than his own personal use and enjoyment as well as those of his family and friends. He argued that if he had done so, then he would have been guilty under the terms of the ordinance but since there was no proof offered in court to support this claim, then he should not be found guilty based solely on speculation or conjecture about what might have happened outside of court proceedings.