John Reynolds, Tenant of the United States brought a case against Duncan M'Arthur in 1829. The dispute was over land that had been granted to John by the government and then sold to Duncan without his knowledge or consent. In order for John's claim to be valid, he needed proof that he had been living on the land prior to its sale. After reviewing all evidence presented, including testimony from witnesses who could attest to his occupancy of the property before it was sold, as well as documents showing payment for improvements made on the land during this time period, it became clear that John did indeed have a legal right to occupy and possess said property at issue. As such, judgment was rendered in favor of Reynolds with an order requiring M'Arthur vacate and surrender possession of said premises back into his hands immediately.

In the case of John Reynolds, Tenant v. Duncan M'Arthur, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that allowed for pre-emption of land in Ohio by settlers prior to 1788 could be applied retroactively. The majority opinion held that it could not and thus denied the plaintiff's claim. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had intended for such laws to apply retroactively; secondly, he asserted that even if they did not intend so explicitly there were still good reasons why they should do so as it would provide stability and security for those who had settled in Ohio before 1788. He concluded by stating his belief that any other interpretation would lead to injustice and confusion among settlers who relied upon these laws when settling their claims.