Gerard C. Brandon brought a case against Ralph W. Loftus and Floyd Whitehead to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1846. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that had been incurred by Loftus and Whitehead for goods purchased from Brandon, who argued that he should be paid back with interest due to their failure to pay him on time. The defendants countered this claim by stating that they were not liable for any damages because there was no written contract between them and Brandon at the time of purchase, which would have made it legally binding upon them to repay him as agreed upon in court proceedings. After much deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gerard C. Brandon, finding that even though there was no written agreement between parties involved, verbal contracts are still valid under law and thus must be honored accordingly; therefore ordering Loftus and Whitehead to pay back all debts owed plus interest accrued since its original date of payment due date passed without being fulfilled by either party involved in this case

In the case of Gerard C. Brandon v. Ralph W. Loftus and Floyd Whitehead, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process under the law as guaranteed by Article IV of the Constitution of Ohio. He stated that while it was true that an action for ejectment could be brought against a tenant who held over after his term expired, this did not apply to cases where there were no written leases or agreements between landlord and tenant; rather, such cases should be decided according to common law principles regarding possession and occupancy rights. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued that even if there had been some kind of agreement between parties involved in this case, it would have been invalid because it violated public policy by allowing one party to take advantage of another's ignorance or lack thereof with regard to their legal rights without providing any compensation for them whatsoever. Finally, he concluded by stating that since no evidence was presented at trial showing any sort of agreement between parties involved in this case – either written or verbal – then plaintiff’s claim must fail on all grounds and defendants should prevail accordingly