In the case of Thomas Maney and others v. Thomas J. Porter, the plaintiffs in error argued that they had a right to use a road which ran through land owned by the defendant, as it was part of an old public highway established before his ownership of said land. The Supreme Court held that while there may have been evidence to suggest such a highway existed at one time, no proof could be found that it was ever legally established or recognized as such by any competent authority; therefore, the defendant's title to his property must remain undisturbed and he has exclusive control over its use. Furthermore, even if this were not so and some sort of legal recognition had been granted for this alleged public highway prior to his purchase of said land from another party who did not own it when establishing such rights would still be impossible due to lack of sufficient notice given either him or other parties interested in using said road.

In the dissenting opinion of Thomas Maney, et al. v. Thomas J. Porter, Justice McLean argued that the majority's decision was in error because it disregarded a fundamental principle of law: that an individual cannot be held liable for damages resulting from another person’s negligence unless they are under some legal obligation to control or prevent such negligence. In this case, Porter had no duty to protect Maney and his associates from any potential harm caused by their own actions; thus he should not have been found liable for any injuries sustained as a result of their activities on his property. Furthermore, McLean contended that even if there had been some sort of agreement between the parties regarding use of the land in question – which there was not – it would still be unreasonable to hold Porter responsible for any damage done by those using his land without permission or supervision since he could not reasonably anticipate all possible risks associated with such activity and therefore could not take adequate measures to prevent them from occurring.