In the case of Robert Brockett et al. v. William Brockett et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed executed by an individual in his lifetime, and which had been accepted by him as valid, could be impeached after his death on account of fraud or mistake. The court held that such a deed could not be impeached after the death of its maker unless it appeared from clear and convincing evidence that he did not understand what he was doing when executing it; otherwise, any person who had taken under such a deed would have no security for their title. Furthermore, if there were sufficient grounds to set aside the instrument during life then they should have been brought forward before acceptance so as to prevent injustice being done afterwards.

In Robert Brockett et al. v. William Brockett et al., the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a deed of land, which had been given by an ancestor to his children in equal shares, could be revoked after his death and re-distributed among them according to their respective needs. The majority opinion held that the deed could not be revoked because it was intended as a final disposition of property rights between the parties involved and thus constituted an irrevocable contract under state law. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were no legal principles preventing revocation of such deeds; secondly, he contended that even if there were such principles they should not apply in this case due to its unique circumstances involving family members who had relied upon each other for support throughout their lives. He concluded by asserting that equity demanded recognition of these facts and allowed for revocation so as to provide relief for those most in need at any given time within the family unit.