Jacob Strader, James Gorman, and John Armstrong were plaintiffs in error in a case against Christopher Graham. The dispute was over the ownership of land located in Indiana that had been sold to Jacob Strader by the United States government. According to the deed given to him by the government, he had paid for it with cash and received title from them. However, Christopher Graham claimed that he owned part of this same land due to an earlier agreement between himself and another individual who had previously held title on it. He argued that his claim should take precedence over Strader's since his agreement predated any action taken by Strader or anyone else involved with purchasing or selling this property. After hearing both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jacob Strader stating that because he purchased his rights directly from the United States Government before any other claims were made on it then those rights superseded all others including those asserted by Christopher Graham.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jacob Strader, James Gorman, and John Armstrong v. Christopher Graham argued that the lower court had erred in its decision to deny a new trial for the plaintiffs. The dissent argued that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support their claim that they were entitled to a new trial due to newly discovered evidence which could have been used by them during their original proceedings. Furthermore, it was contended that this newly discovered evidence would likely have resulted in an acquittal or reduced sentence for the plaintiffs if it had been available at their initial trials. Therefore, according to the dissenters, justice demanded granting a new trial as opposed to upholding what appeared on its face as an unjust conviction based upon incomplete information and testimony from witnesses who may not have provided accurate accounts of events leading up to and surrounding each plaintiff's alleged crime(s).