In the case of Daniel Stringer, Philip M. Linger, Nicholas, Margaret and Joseph Linger v. The Lessee of John Young et al., the plaintiffs in error argued that they had a right to certain lands by virtue of their father's will which granted them title to these properties upon his death. The defendants contended that they were entitled to the land under an earlier deed from John Young who was deceased at the time this dispute arose. Ultimately, it was determined that while there may have been some ambiguity as to whether or not both parties held valid titles for different portions of land in question due to conflicting deeds and wills, ultimately neither party could prove exclusive ownership over any part of said property and thus no one could be awarded title rights over any portion thereof.

In the case of Daniel Stringer, Philip M. Linger, Nicholas, Margaret and Joseph Linger v. The Lessee of John Young et al., the dissenting opinion was that the court should have granted a new trial to the plaintiffs due to errors in jury instructions given by the presiding judge. The dissent argued that these errors were so prejudicial as to render any verdict rendered invalid and thus warranting a retrial for all parties involved. Specifically, it was contended that jurors had been instructed on matters not supported by evidence presented at trial or relevant legal precedent; this instruction allowed them to consider irrelevant facts when making their decision which could have led them astray from reaching an impartial conclusion based solely on what had been presented during proceedings. Furthermore, it was also noted that certain questions posed by counsel for both sides were improperly excluded from consideration which further undermined their ability to make an informed judgement without bias or prejudice towards either party's argumentation