In this case, John Walsh, Edward Walsh and Dickinson B. Morehead (the appellants) were the owners of a steamboat called Iowa. They appealed against Patrick Rogers, Thomas Sherlock, John B. Simmons, Edward Montgomery, John W. Baker and P. A. Anshute (the claimants), who had laid claim to another steamboat named Declaration that was in their possession at the time of the appeal hearing before the Supreme Court of United States in 1851 . The court heard arguments from both sides regarding ownership rights over Declaration as well as other issues related to maritime law such as salvage claims for services rendered by one party on behalf of another vessel or its cargo during an emergency situation at sea or port etc., but ultimately ruled in favor of the appellants based on evidence presented by them showing clear title to Iowa which they argued extended also to Declaration due to certain legal principles applicable under admiralty jurisdiction laws governing vessels operating within US waters at that time period .

In this case, the owners of the steamboat Iowa (the appellants) appealed a decision by the District Court that awarded ownership of another steamboat, Declaration, to six claimants. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that under maritime law, possession is prima facie evidence of title in cases involving vessels on navigable waters. The majority opinion reasoned that since there was no dispute as to who had actual physical control over Declaration at all times relevant to this case, it should be presumed they were its rightful owners. The dissenting opinion argued against applying maritime law in this situation because it would lead to unjust results when applied outside of admiralty jurisdiction. It also noted that while possession may be sufficient for establishing title within admiralty jurisdiction due to its unique nature and purpose; however such an approach could not be extended beyond those boundaries without creating confusion and uncertainty about property rights generally. Furthermore, it contended that even if one accepted the premise underlying maritime law – namely “that he who has taken a thing out upon his own peril shall have right thereto” – then here too there was still some doubt as to whether or not appellants had actually taken possession with their own risk given other facts presented during trial which cast doubt on their claim