In the case of Charles A. Williamson and Catharine H. Williamson, His Wife v The Irish Presbyterian Congregation of the City of New York, the Williamsons brought a suit against the congregation for damages due to their alleged negligence in failing to maintain an adjoining wall between their property and that owned by the church. The court found that there was no evidence presented which showed any agreement or understanding between them regarding maintenance or repair of said wall; thus, they were not liable for any damages caused by its collapse. Furthermore, it was determined that since both parties had equal rights to use and occupy land adjacent to each other without interference from one another, neither party could be held responsible for damage resulting from such use or occupation unless otherwise agreed upon in writing beforehand. As such, judgment was entered in favor of defendants on all counts.

In the case of Charles A. Williamson and Catharine H. Williamson, His Wife v The Irish Presbyterian Congregation of the City of New York, Justice Nelson wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have found for the plaintiffs on their claim to title by adverse possession. He reasoned that since there was no dispute as to whether or not they had been in actual possession for more than twenty years prior to bringing suit, it was clear that they had acquired title under common law principles governing adverse possession. Furthermore, he noted that even though there were some discrepancies between what was stated in their deed and what actually existed on site at the time of purchase (namely an encroachment onto adjoining land), this did not negate their right to possess and use said property as long as such use did not interfere with any rights held by others over those lands. Therefore, Justice Nelson concluded that because all elements necessary for establishing a valid claim through adverse possession were present here – open and notorious occupation coupled with exclusive control over said property – then it followed logically that these plaintiffs should be allowed full ownership rights thereto regardless of any technicalities related to deeds or encroachments upon other properties owned by third parties.