Clinton Walworth brought a case against James Kneeland and Hannah his wife, as well as Frances Cornelia Foster and William Foster (infants) by their next friend, James Kneeland. The dispute was over the title to certain lands in New York State. Walworth claimed that he had purchased the land from one John Coddington who held it under an original grant from the state of New York; however, Kneeland argued that he had acquired title to the same land through a deed from another party. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Walworth on grounds that Coddington's grant was valid and superior to any other claim made by either party. Furthermore, since both parties were claiming rights based on grants issued prior to 1848 when New York passed its statute concerning adverse possession claims, neither could take advantage of this law for their own benefit or detriment. Thus, Walworth's claim prevailed due to its earlier priority date compared with those asserted by Kneeland et al., making him rightful owner of the disputed property.

In Clinton Walworth v. James Kneeland and Hannah his wife, and Frances Cornelia Foster and William Foster, Infants, by their Next Friend, James Kneeland (1853), the dissenting opinion argued that the court should have found in favor of the plaintiff. The dissent reasoned that when a party has been wrongfully dispossessed of land they are entitled to recover it back from any person who holds it under an invalid title or claim. In this case, there was evidence presented which showed that Walworth had been unlawfully deprived of possession through fraudulently obtained proceedings against him in another state court; thus he was entitled to reclaim his property from those holding it without valid title or claim. Furthermore, even if there were some technical defects in Walworth's original deed for the land at issue here - as suggested by defendants - these would not be sufficient to defeat his right to recovery since such defects could easily be remedied with proper legal action taken on behalf of both parties involved. Therefore, according to the dissenters' view justice demanded a ruling in favor of Walworth so he could regain rightful possession over what belonged rightfully belonged to him all along.