John A. Brown, Administrator of John Aspden, Deceased and other appellants brought a case against Mathias Aspden's Administrators and others for the recovery of certain lands in Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court held that the deed from Mathias to his son was valid as it had been made with full knowledge of all parties involved and there was no evidence that any fraud or undue influence had taken place. Furthermore, they found that even if such fraud or undue influence did exist, it would not be sufficient to invalidate the deed because at least one party (the son) must have acted without being influenced by another party in order for a court to set aside a contract on those grounds. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment below which dismissed their complaint with costs against them.

In the case of John A. Brown, Administrator of John Aspden, Deceased et al., v. Mathias Aspden's Administrators et al., Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds and instead should have considered it on its merits. He noted that although there was an error in filing due to a misnomer, this did not affect jurisdiction or prejudice any party as all parties were aware of who was involved and what claims were being made. Furthermore, he argued that since no one had been misled by this mistake and all parties had received notice of the proceedings regardless, dismissing the appeal would be unjustly harsh for appellants who could potentially lose their rights if they are unable to file again within two years from when judgment is entered against them - something they may be unable to do given their circumstances at present time. Therefore Justice Grier concluded his dissent by arguing that justice demands consideration of appeals based upon merit rather than technicalities such as misnomers or errors in filing paperwork.