William Yeaton brought a case against Adam Lynn, the executor of John Wise, as well as Thomas C. Lyle and Rebecca his wife, Dennis M. Lyle, Henry S. Coombs and Louisa his wife in 1831. The dispute was over land that had been owned by William’s father-in-law who died without leaving a will or any other legal document to prove ownership of the property. William argued that he should be given title to the land because it had been passed down through generations of his family since 1790 when it was first acquired from an Indian tribe by one of William's ancestors; however, Adam Lynn claimed that he held title to the property due to an agreement between him and John Wise prior to John's death which stated that if either party died then their interest in the land would pass on to their heirs or assigns respectively. After much deliberation over this complicated issue involving multiple parties with conflicting claims regarding ownership rights for this piece of real estate located in Virginia at stake, ultimately it was decided by Supreme Court justices in favor of William Yeaton granting him full title and possession over said lands based on evidence presented proving its long history within his family line dating back more than 40 years before this case ever went before them for consideration

In the dissenting opinion of William Yeaton vs. Adam Lynn, Executor of John Wise, Use of Thomas C. Lyle and Rebecca his wife, Dennis M. Lyle, Henry S. Coombs and Louisa his wife (1831), Justice Story argued that the court should not have dismissed Yeaton's bill as it was filed in good faith to protect himself from a potential loss due to an alleged fraud committed by Wise against him. He further argued that there were sufficient facts presented in the case for a jury trial to determine whether or not any fraud had been committed by Wise against Yeaton which would entitle him to relief under equity law if proven true at trial. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that since there were enough facts present for a jury trial on this matter then it should be allowed so justice could be served accordingly instead of dismissing the case outright without allowing any opportunity for proof or rebuttal from either side regarding their respective claims made in this dispute over land ownership rights between them both