This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between Seth Spring and the executors of William Gray. The plaintiffs, led by Spring, argued that they were entitled to certain lands in Kentucky which had been granted to them by an act of Congress in 1802. However, the defendants claimed that these lands had already been sold off prior to their claim being made. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the defendants and held that since the land was no longer available for sale at the time when plaintiff's claim was made, it could not be granted as requested. This decision established precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over public land grants from Congress.

In the case of Seth Spring and Others v. The Executors of William Gray, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiffs should be allowed to recover damages for their losses due to an erroneous survey conducted by the defendants. He reasoned that since it was established law that when two parties enter into a contract, each party is responsible for any errors or omissions made by either side, then this same principle should apply here as well. Furthermore, he noted that while there may have been some negligence on behalf of both sides in this particular instance, it did not absolve them from liability because they were still obligated under the terms of their agreement to make sure all surveys were accurate and complete before entering into any transaction based upon them. As such, Justice McLean concluded that if one party suffered loss due to another's mistake or omission then they are entitled to compensation regardless of fault or negligence on either side.