In the case of Bingham v. Cabbot et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from an individual, who had no legal authority to do so, could be used as evidence in court. The plaintiff argued that he had purchased land from one John Smith and presented a deed as proof of his purchase; however, it was later revealed that Smith did not have any legal authority to sell the land in question. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the plaintiff on this issue and held that deeds executed by individuals without proper authority were invalid and could not be used as evidence in court proceedings. This decision established important precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding property rights and ownership disputes.

In the case of Bingham v. Cabbot, Justice Paterson delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted judgment for the defendants on grounds of laches (unreasonable delay). He reasoned that since there was no evidence to support such an argument, it would be unjust to deny plaintiff's claim based solely on this ground. Furthermore, Paterson believed that even if there had been some unreasonable delay by plaintiff in bringing his suit against defendant, it did not necessarily mean that he had forfeited his right to recover damages from them. Instead, any delays could be taken into account when determining what amount of compensation should be awarded and whether or not interest should accrue during said period. Ultimately, Paterson concluded by stating that while equitable considerations may sometimes require courts to refuse relief where a party has unreasonably delayed their action; however they must always do so with caution and only after considering all relevant facts before making such decisions.