William F. Raymond's Lessee v. Nicholas Longworth was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1852 that centered around a dispute over land ownership rights between two parties, William F. Raymond and Nicholas Longworth. The case involved an original grant of land from the state of Ohio to one John Cleves Symmes, who then sold it to William F. Raymond’s father-in-law in 1794 with certain conditions attached to its use and sale; however, those conditions were not fulfilled when the property was later transferred by deed from Mr. Raymond’s father-in-law to his son-in law (Mr. Raymond). This transfer caused confusion as both Mr Raymon and Nicholas Longworth claimed title over this piece of land due conflicting interpretations of the original grant agreement made between John Cleves Symmes and Mr Raymon's father in law . Ultimately, after much deliberation on behalf of both sides ,the court ruled that since no evidence could be found proving either party had legal right or title over this particular parcel of land ,it should remain unallocated until further proof is presented .

In William F. Raymond's Lessee v. Nicholas Longworth, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tenant in possession of land had the right to bring an action for trespass against another person who entered onto and occupied that same land without permission from either the landlord or tenant. The majority opinion held that such an action could not be brought by a tenant in possession because they were not considered owners of the property under common law principles; however, Justice McLean dissented on this point and argued that tenants should have been allowed to bring suit as their rights were established through contract with their landlords. He reasoned that since tenants are legally entitled to exclusive occupancy of leased premises during their tenancy period, any interference with those rights should be remediable at law regardless of ownership status. Furthermore, he noted how allowing tenants to sue would provide them greater protection than if they relied solely upon remedies provided by statute or equity alone which may prove inadequate depending on circumstances surrounding each case.