Wetzel v. Bussard was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused by his cattle trespassing on another's land. The plaintiff, Wetzel, argued that he should be able to recover damages from the defendant, Bussard, who owned and controlled the cattle in question. The court found in favor of Wetzel and ruled that an owner can indeed be held responsible for any damage done by their animals if they are negligent in controlling them or allowing them to trespass onto someone else’s property without permission. This ruling established a precedent which still stands today: owners must take reasonable steps to ensure their animals do not cause harm or damage while on other people’s land.

In Wetzell v. Bussard, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court. He argued that a court of equity had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction against a sheriff for levying on goods in execution of a judgment obtained by default when there was no fraud or collusion between plaintiff and defendant. The majority held that such an injunction could be granted if it appeared from the pleadings that plaintiff had been deprived of his property without due process; however, Marshall disagreed with this interpretation because he believed it would lead to unnecessary litigation and expense for parties who were already in possession of their rights under existing law. Furthermore, he argued that granting injunctions against sheriffs would undermine public confidence in them as officers charged with executing judgments according to law.