In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States, Use of James Mackey et al. Plaintiffs in Error v. Richard S. Coxe, the court was asked to decide whether a patent for an invention could be issued when it had already been used by others prior to its application date with the Patent Office. At issue was a machine invented by William Foden that he claimed improved upon existing machines and processes for producing paper from rags and other materials. Foden applied for his patent on October 5th 1853 but there were claims that he had begun using his invention before this date as well as evidence that similar inventions were being used elsewhere at around the same time or earlier than Foden's application date. Ultimately, after considering all arguments presented by both sides, the court ruled against issuing a patent because they found sufficient evidence showing that someone else had already made use of such an invention prior to Foden's application date which meant it did not meet requirements necessary for obtaining a valid patent under US law at that time.

In the case of The United States, Use of James Mackey et al. Plaintiffs in Error v. Richard S. Coxe, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Wayne and Catron. He argued that the Court should have dismissed the writ because it was not properly issued by an officer authorized to do so under law; instead, they had allowed it to be amended after being filed with them which he believed was improper procedure for a court of equity or admiralty jurisdiction as this one purported to be. Furthermore, he asserted that even if there were sufficient grounds for granting relief from forfeiture in this particular instance - which he did not believe there were - then such relief could only come through Congress rather than through judicial action since Congress alone has authority over matters involving revenue collection and public funds like those at issue here. Finally, Taney concluded his dissent by noting that any decision made by the Court would set a precedent allowing individuals who are subject to forfeiture proceedings due to non-payment of taxes or other debts owed to government entities access similar forms of equitable relief without having first gone through proper legal channels as required by law