This Supreme Court case involved James H. Suydam, the plaintiff in error, and William H. Williamson, David R. Williamson, Mary A. Williamson, Isabella Williamson, Catherine B. Williamson Charlotte A. Willimason Rupert J Cochran Isabella M Cochrane and Bayard Clarke as defendants in error over a dispute regarding land ownership rights in New York City’s East River waterfront area known as “The Neck” or “Suydam's Neck” which was owned by the Suydam family since 1686 when it was granted to them by Governor Dongan of New York Colony for services rendered during King Philip's War with Native Americans tribes living on Long Island at that time . The issue before the court was whether or not title to this property had been extinguished due to adverse possession laws under English common law prior to 1845 when these laws were abolished by statute in New York State; if so then title would have passed from the Suydams' estate into public domain and be available for sale through auction without compensation being paid out to any party claiming an interest therein.. After reviewing all evidence presented including testimony from witnesses who lived near The Neck at various times throughout its history ,the court ultimately ruled that while there may have been some instances of trespassers occupying portions of The Neck over many years , none could be considered sufficient enough under prevailing legal standards such that they would extinguish title held by James H Suydam thereby allowing him rightful claim

In this case, James H. Suydam was the plaintiff in error and William H. Williamson, David R. Williamson, Mary A. Williamson, Isabella Williamson, Catherine B. Williamson Charlotte A. Willimason Rupert J Cochran Isabella M Cochrane and Bayard Clarke were defendants in error who had been granted a judgment against him by the Supreme Court of New York for $3200 plus costs on an action to recover damages for breach of contract concerning certain lands sold by Suydam to them with warranty that he had good title thereto when it turned out that his title was defective due to prior encumbrances upon it which rendered it unmarketable as well as worthless except for nominal value only . The dissenting opinion argued that although there may have been some evidence presented at trial indicating a breach of warranty on behalf of Suydam , such evidence did not rise to the level necessary to support a finding of liability or award damages since there was no proof offered regarding any actual loss suffered by the plaintiffs from their purchase or how much they would have paid if they had known about these defects before purchasing . Furthermore , even if one assumed all facts alleged were true , then still no cause existed under law whereupon recovery could be based because none can be held liable unless damage is proven resulting from their actions . Therefore , while recognizing that courts should generally uphold contracts made between parties absent fraud or other wrongdoing being present here , ultimately justice requires dismissal of this suit given lack thereof here