In Richard J. Watkins v. The Lessee of Oliver Holman et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tenant in possession of land had the right to cut down trees on that land for his own use, even if it caused damage to the property owner's reversionary interest. The court held that tenants in possession have no such right and must pay damages for any injury they cause by cutting down trees or otherwise damaging their landlord’s property. Furthermore, the court determined that when a tenant has been wrongfully dispossessed from leased premises, he may recover rent due up until his eviction as well as compensation for any improvements made during tenancy which are not destroyed by eviction or other means beyond his control. This case established important precedent regarding rights and responsibilities between landlords and tenants with respect to leased properties and set forth guidelines governing how disputes should be resolved between them going forward.

In the case of Richard J. Watkins v. The Lessee of Oliver Holman et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee had a right to remove timber from land that they were leasing, even though it was not specified in their lease agreement. Justice McLean delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that since there is no express stipulation in the contract between Watkins and Holman regarding removal of timber, then it should be implied as part of any reasonable lease agreement for agricultural purposes. He argued further that if such an implication did not exist then tenants would have little incentive to improve or cultivate leased lands because they could never reap any benefit from them beyond what was explicitly stated in their contracts with landlords. Therefore, he concluded that tenants should be allowed to take advantage of natural resources on leased lands so long as it does not interfere with other rights granted by law or contract and provided those resources are used reasonably and without wastefulness or destruction