In this case, Lessee of Gabriel Swayze and Mary his wife (plaintiffs) brought a suit against Robert Burke, D. Sherman, George Jackson and James Hinsman (defendants). The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully dispossessed from their land by the defendants. They claimed that the defendants had acted in violation of an act passed by Congress which granted them permission to occupy certain lands on the western frontier for five years without paying rent or taxes. The Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiffs and held that they were entitled to remain on their property until such time as it was lawfully taken away from them according to law. This decision established important legal precedent regarding rights related to occupancy of public lands in America at this time period.

In the case of Lessee of Gabriel Swayze, and Mary his Wife, Plaintiffs in Error v. Robert Burke, D. Sherman, George Jackson and James Hinsman Defendants (1838), the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided due to an error made by one party if it can be proven that both parties were aware of its terms before signing. The dissent reasoned that since there was evidence presented at trial which showed both parties had knowledge of the agreement's contents prior to execution then it should remain valid despite any errors or omissions made by either side during negotiations or drafting. Furthermore, they argued that even though some discrepancies existed between what was written down on paper and what each party believed they were agreeing too; this did not necessarily mean either side acted with bad faith or intended to deceive one another as no proof had been provided for such claims. As such, they concluded that the contract should stand as is without being invalidated based solely on technicalities alone.