This Supreme Court case was between Lessee of Samuel Reed, the plaintiff in error, and William Marsh, the defendant in error. The dispute arose when a contract was made between Reed and Marsh for the sale of land located in Ohio. Under this agreement, Marsh agreed to pay $1 per acre for all lands within certain boundaries that were surveyed by an agent appointed by both parties. However, after surveying only part of the area described in their agreement, it became apparent that there were more acres than originally thought due to discrepancies with prior surveys conducted on behalf of other landowners. As such, Reed sought additional compensation from Marsh beyond what had been initially agreed upon but his request was denied as he did not provide evidence proving any discrepancy or mistake regarding previous surveys conducted on behalf of other landowners. Ultimately, the court ruled against Reed's claim as they found no proof that would support his argument and ordered him to pay damages incurred by Marshall during litigation proceedings related to this case.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lessee of Samuel Reed v. William Marsh was delivered by Justice McLean. He argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove their right to possession and title, as they did not have a deed or other evidence proving ownership. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were proof of ownership, it would be difficult for them to establish a claim against the defendant since they had been in possession for such an extended period without any objection from him or his predecessors. In conclusion, Justice McLean stated that while he believed the plaintiff should receive some compensation due to their long-term occupancy on land which may have belonged to them at one point, this could only be done through legislative action rather than judicial decision.