In the case of Charles Ballance v. Robert Forsyth, Luciene Dumain, and Antoine R. Bouis, Ballance appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court ruled against him in a dispute over property rights. The issue at hand was whether or not Ballance had acquired title to certain land by virtue of his possession for more than twenty years prior to 1851 when he filed suit against Forsyth et al., who were claiming ownership based on an earlier grant from Spain. After considering evidence presented by both sides, including testimony from witnesses familiar with the area's history and geography as well as documents related to Spanish grants made during that time period, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with Forsyth et al., finding that their claim was supported by sufficient proof while Ballance failed to provide any legal basis for his own claim of title acquisition through long-term possession alone.

In the case of Charles Ballance v. Robert Forsyth, Luciene Dumain, and Antoine R. Bouis, the Supreme Court had to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid or not. The appellant argued that he had entered into an agreement with one of the respondents for a loan in exchange for his property as security; however, this respondent died before any money was exchanged and thus no debt could be collected from him by law. The remaining respondents argued that they were entitled to collect on behalf of their deceased relative since they were his legal heirs and representatives. In its decision, the majority opinion held that there was no evidence presented which showed that either party intended to enter into a binding contract at all; therefore it could not be enforced against them by law even if it did exist prior to death of one party involved in it. However Justice Grier dissented from this ruling arguing instead that when both parties have agreed upon terms such as those present here then regardless of whether money has been exchanged yet or not there is still an enforceable obligation between them according to common law principles which should be respected by courts accordingly