Joseph Wiswall brought a case against David Sampson, lessee of Edward Hall and Edward S. Dargan, to the Supreme Court in 1852. The dispute was over an agreement between Wiswall and Sampson that involved a lease for land owned by Hall and Dargan. According to the agreement, Wiswall would pay rent on the property for three years with no interest or other charges due during this period. However, when it came time to settle up at the end of those three years, Sampson demanded additional payments from Wiswall which he refused to pay as they were not part of their original agreement. As such, Wiswall sued Sampson in order to have his rights under their contract enforced by law. After hearing both sides’ arguments regarding whether or not these extra payments should be made according to their initial contract terms or if there had been any changes since then that warranted them being added on top of what was already agreed upon; ultimately ruling in favor of Joseph Wiswell's position that no further payment beyond what had originally been agreed upon should be required from him .

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee of land had an obligation to pay rent for that land if it had been taken by eminent domain. The majority opinion held that the lessee did not have such an obligation because they were no longer in possession of the property and could not benefit from its use. However, Justice McLean dissented from this opinion on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since the lease agreement between parties predated any taking by eminent domain, it should be honored; secondly, he maintained that even if there was no legal requirement for payment of rent after a taking by eminent domain occurred, there still existed a moral duty to do so as long as some benefit remained with respect to the leased property. He concluded his dissent stating "I think justice requires [the tenant] should make compensation."