In the case of William F. Walker and Samuel M. Puckett v George S. Robbins, Lloyd W. Wells, Abijah Fisher, and Robert H. McCurdy, two individuals brought a suit against four other individuals for an alleged trespass on their property in Virginia that caused them damages to their crops and timber growing on the land in question as well as loss of use of the land itself due to its destruction by fire set by those being sued (the defendants). The appellants argued that they were entitled to compensation from the defendants for these losses based upon common law principles such as trespass ab initio or ejectment; however, this was rejected by lower courts who instead found that since there had been no actual physical entry onto the land at issue but rather only damage done through setting fires around it which then spread onto it without any direct contact with it from anyone involved in setting said fires - thus making it impossible for either party to prove exactly how much damage each defendant had actually caused - meant that neither side could be held liable under existing laws at time of trial nor could any sort of equitable remedy be applied given lack evidence available regarding extent/nature/source(s)of damages incurred . As a result Supreme Court upheld decision made below finding no liability existed between parties & dismissed appeal accordingly

In the dissenting opinion of William F. Walker and Samuel M. Puckett v George S. Robbins, Lloyd W Wells, Abijah Fisher, and Robert H McCurdy, Justice McLean argued that the appellants had a valid claim to their land in dispute because they were able to prove ownership through a deed from an individual who was authorized by Congress to sell it. He further stated that although there may have been some irregularities with the original sale of this property due to conflicting laws at the time of purchase, these issues should not be used as grounds for denying them title since they had already paid for it in full before any discrepancies arose. The majority decision held that since no one could definitively prove who owned or sold this land prior to its purchase by Walker and Puckett, then neither party could lay claim on it; however Justice McLean disagreed with this ruling stating that if both parties can show proof of payment then possession should be granted regardless of any other factors involved in its acquisition process.