The White Water Valley Canal Company appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court ruling in favor of Henry Vallette and others. The dispute was over whether or not the canal company had an exclusive right to use certain water sources for their operations, as they claimed. The Supreme Court ruled that while the canal company did have some rights, these were limited by state law and could not be extended beyond what was specified in those laws. Furthermore, it found that other parties had valid claims on the same waters which could not be denied without due process of law. This decision established important precedent regarding property rights and access to natural resources such as water sources.

In the case of The White Water Valley Canal Company v. Henry Vallette and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a canal company had the right to take private property for public use without just compensation. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority; however, Justice Grier dissented from this decision. He argued that under certain circumstances, taking private land for public use could be justified if there was an overriding need or benefit to society as a whole. He also noted that while some people may suffer losses due to these takings, they should still be compensated in order for justice and fairness to prevail. Ultimately, he concluded by stating that any law which allowed companies like The White Water Valley Canal Company to take land without providing fair compensation would violate both natural justice and constitutional principles of due process of law.