In the case of John Bacon, Alexander Symington, and Thomas Robins v. Volney E. Howard, the complainants argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of their property by a fraudulent deed executed by Howard in 1851. The Supreme Court found that while there was evidence to suggest fraud on behalf of Howard, it was not sufficient enough to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as required for such cases under Virginia law at the time. As such, the court ruled in favor of Howard and denied relief to Bacon et al., holding that he did not have any legal obligation or duty towards them with regards to this matter since no valid contract existed between them due to lack of proof regarding fraudulence on his part.

In the case of John Bacon, Alexander Symington, and Thomas Robins v. Volney E. Howard, the complainants argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of their property rights when a patent was issued to Howard for an invention which they claimed as their own. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that the patent should be upheld because it was validly obtained by Howard under existing law at the time he applied for it. The dissent argued that even though there may have been some technical compliance with legal requirements in obtaining his patent, justice still demanded recognition of prior inventors' rights to inventions made before any application for a patent is filed or granted. Furthermore, since no evidence existed showing bad faith on behalf of Howard in applying for his patent after learning about previous inventions related to his own work, then equity required him to pay compensation to those who were previously engaged in similar activities but whose efforts went unrecognized due to lack of protection from intellectual property laws at the time.