Charles Scott, bailiff of William S. Moore, plaintiff in error v. John Lloyd was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1835. The dispute arose when Charles Scott attempted to collect on a debt owed to William S. Moore from John Lloyd and his wife Mary Ann Lloyd for goods purchased at their store in Virginia several years prior. When the Lloyds refused to pay the debt, Scott seized some of their property as payment under Virginia law which allowed creditors to do so if they could not otherwise collect on debts due them from individuals or businesses located within that state's borders. The Lloyds then sued for damages claiming that such seizure violated both federal and state laws protecting citizens against unreasonable search and seizures without proper legal authority or process being followed first by creditors attempting collection activities like those taken by Mr. Scott against them here.. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court ruled in favor of Mr. Lloyd finding that he had been wrongfully deprived of his property without any legal justification whatsoever thus violating his rights under both federal and state laws governing such matters at issue here today

In the case of Charles Scott, Bailiff of William S. Moore v. John Lloyd, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been able to prove his right to recover damages from the defendant for an alleged trespass on his property. He reasoned that since there was no evidence presented by either party as to who owned or occupied the land at issue, it could not be determined whether any injury had occurred and therefore no damages should be awarded. Furthermore, he noted that even if it were established beyond doubt who owned or occupied the land at issue, this would still not necessarily entitle them to compensation because they must also show proof of actual damage caused by trespassing before being entitled to recovery under common law principles. In conclusion, Chief Justice Taney believed that without sufficient evidence regarding ownership and occupancy rights as well as proof of actual harm resulting from such trespassers’ actions, neither party should receive any monetary award in this case.