In Carey Bagnell and the Executors of Morgan Byrne v. George W. Broderick, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed executed by an attorney in fact for another person could be considered valid without being acknowledged or proved according to law. The plaintiffs argued that since the deed had been signed by their agent, it should be considered valid even though it had not been properly acknowledged or proven according to law. The defendant argued that such a document could not be legally binding unless it was properly acknowledged and proven as required by statute. After considering both sides’ arguments, the court held that although an attorney-in-fact may execute deeds on behalf of his principal, those documents must still comply with all applicable laws regarding acknowledgment and proof before they can become legally binding contracts between parties involved in real estate transactions.

In Carey Bagnell and the Executors of Morgan Byrne v. George W. Broderick, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have reversed the judgment of the lower court because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of law. He stated that under existing laws, when a contract is made between two parties for goods or services to be provided by one party to another, any subsequent agreement must be supported by consideration from both sides in order for it to be valid and binding upon them. In this case, there had been no such consideration given by either side; therefore, Justice McLean concluded that there was no legal basis for upholding the decision of the lower court and reversing its judgement would have been appropriate.