In Buckhannon, Hagan and Co., for the use of George Buckhannon v. William Tinnin, Ralph Campbell, and John G. Andrews, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be held liable in an action on a promissory note even if they were not named as signatories on it. The plaintiffs argued that since all three defendants had benefited from the loan secured by the note in question - which was signed only by two individuals - they should be held jointly responsible for its repayment. The court ultimately ruled against this argument; while acknowledging that all three defendants had received some benefit from the loan transaction at issue here, it found that there was no legal basis to hold them accountable due to their lack of involvement with signing or endorsing said promissory note.

In the case of Buckhannon, Hagan and Co., for the use of George Buckhannon v. William Tinnin, Ralph Campbell, and John G. Andrews, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have granted relief to plaintiffs on their assumpsit claim against defendants for breach of contract. He reasoned that although there was no written agreement between parties regarding payment for goods sold by plaintiff to defendant, it was clear from circumstantial evidence presented at trial that an implied promise had been made by defendants to pay plaintiff's debt upon delivery of goods. Furthermore, Justice McLean noted that even if such an agreement did not exist at time of sale or delivery as alleged by defendants' counsel during oral argument before court; still under common law principles governing contracts and sales transactions applicable in this jurisdiction at time suit brought; plaintiff would be entitled to recover damages based on quantum meruit theory due its having performed services requested/agreed upon with reasonable expectation being paid therefore accordingly. Thus he concluded Court should grant relief sought by plaintiffs despite lack formal written contract between parties given facts present here & legal precedents cited above