In Walker and Wife, Appellants v. Cyrus Griffin's Heirs, Respondents, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by Cyrus Griffin in 1790 conveyed an absolute title or only a qualified one. The appellants argued that it had been intended as an absolute conveyance; however, the respondents contended that it should be interpreted as conveying only a qualified title because there were certain conditions attached to its execution. After considering both sides' arguments and examining relevant case law from other jurisdictions on similar matters, the court ultimately held that although some ambiguity existed in interpreting this particular deed of trust due to its language being somewhat unclear at times, upon consideration of all evidence presented before them they concluded that it did indeed constitute an absolute conveyance rather than merely conferring a qualified title.

In Walker and Wife, Appellants v. Cyrus Griffin's Heirs, Respondents, the Supreme Court of Virginia heard an appeal from a lower court ruling that had granted a motion to dismiss the appellants' case. The appellants argued that they were entitled to recover damages for trespass on their land by the respondents due to cutting down trees without permission. The majority opinion held that since no damage was done beyond what would have been caused by natural decay or destruction of timber over time, there could be no recovery for trespass in this instance. However, Chief Justice Marshall dissented from this opinion and argued that regardless of whether any actual damage occurred as a result of cutting down trees without permission on another person’s property constituted an actionable wrong under common law principles and should not be dismissed out-of-hand simply because it did not cause immediate harm or injury.