Eliphas Spencer brought a case against John W. Lapsley to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that he had been wrongfully evicted from his property in Ohio. The court found that while Spencer was indeed entitled to possession of the land, it could not be granted because he had failed to comply with certain requirements under Ohio law regarding eviction proceedings. Furthermore, since these requirements were part of state law and not federal law, they could not be enforced by a federal court. As such, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lapsley and denied Spencer's claim for possession or damages related thereto.

In Eliphias Spencer v. John W. Lapsley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract could be enforced when it had been made with an individual who lacked legal capacity due to their age and mental state. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy; however, Justice Grier dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there was no clear evidence of fraud or duress in this particular case and thus enforcing the contract would not violate public policy. He argued that if individuals are allowed to enter into contracts without understanding them fully then those agreements should still be upheld as long as both parties have received some benefit from them and neither has been defrauded or taken advantage of by another party's lack of knowledge or understanding about what they were agreeing to do. Furthermore, he noted that allowing these types of contracts would encourage people to take more responsibility for their actions rather than relying solely on others' opinions about what is best for them at any given time.