David D. Withers brought a case against Ransom Buckley, Daniel Wilson, Newton Huff, Hugh R. Davis, Douglas H. Cooper, Charles Vaughan and James Metcalf in the Supreme Court of the United States for an alleged trespass on his land in Kentucky. The defendants had entered onto Withers' land to cut timber without permission or authority from him or anyone else with legal right to do so. In their defense they argued that they were acting under orders from the state government which had authorized them to build a road through Withers' property as part of a larger public works project; however this was not accepted by the court who found that such authorization did not give them any rights over private property and thus constituted trespassing on Wither's land regardless of its purpose being for public benefit. As such it was ruled that damages should be paid by all seven defendants jointly and severally according to law at trial level whereupon judgment would be given accordingly

In the dissenting opinion of David D. Withers v. Ransom Buckley, Daniel Wilson, Newton Huff, Hugh R. Davis, Douglas H. Cooper, Charles Vaughan and James Metcalf (1857), Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff had a right to bring an action against the defendants for damages caused by their negligence in failing to properly construct a bridge over which he was passing when it collapsed beneath him and his horse-drawn wagon resulting in injury to both himself and his property. He further stated that although there may have been some contributory negligence on behalf of Mr Withers due to his failure to inspect the bridge prior to crossing it or take other precautions such as slowing down or stopping altogether if necessary; this did not absolve the defendants from liability since they were responsible for constructing a safe structure capable of bearing its intended load without danger of collapse under normal circumstances - something which they failed miserably at doing here according to Justice McLean's dissent who concluded with "the law should protect those who are injured through no fault of their own".