Samuel Veazie sued Ira Wadleigh and others for the wrongful possession of a schooner, which he claimed to be his property. The Supreme Court held that although Veazie had not been able to prove title in himself, he was entitled to recover damages from the defendants because they had wrongfully taken possession of it. The court reasoned that since there were no other claimants with better titles than Veazie's, he should have been allowed to retain possession until such time as another claimant could establish a superior right. Furthermore, the court found that even if another party did eventually come forward with an indisputable claim of ownership over the vessel, this would not affect Veazie’s right to compensation for its wrongful taking by Wadleigh and others.

In the case of Samuel Veazie v. Ira Wadleigh et al., Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted an injunction to prevent foreclosure on Veazie's mortgage. He reasoned that, since there was no dispute as to whether or not Veazie had defaulted on his loan payments, it would be inappropriate for the court to interfere with what was essentially a private contract between two parties. Furthermore, Taney noted that granting such an injunction could set a dangerous precedent and open up courts of equity to all kinds of similar claims from debtors who were attempting to avoid their obligations under contracts they had freely entered into. Ultimately, Taney concluded by stating that if Congress wanted debtors like Veazie protected from creditors' actions then it should pass legislation specifically addressing this issue rather than allowing courts of equity to intervene in matters best left for state legislatures and common law judges.