Saunders Burgess brought a case against John M. Gray, Thomas Burgess Jr., Aaron Burgess, Simeon Burgess, James Burgess Jr., Samuel T. Northcut alias Northcraft, Silas Husky, Aaron A. Smirl George Arnold Austin M Johnston and George W Ogde for the recovery of land in dispute between them. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the possession of certain lands by virtue of an agreement made with his father before his death which provided him with title to the property upon payment of certain sums due from him at different times as specified in said agreement; but it appeared that some time after this contract was entered into and while still alive his father had conveyed away part or all of these lands to other parties who were defendants in this suit. The court found that although there had been no fraud on either side when the deed was executed by Saunders' father yet since then circumstances had arisen which rendered it inequitable for Saunders to be held bound thereby and therefore reversed judgment given below awarding title to defendants and remanded cause back for further proceedings according to law

In Saunders Burgess v. John M. Gray et al., the dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff had not been given a fair trial and should be granted a new one. The dissent noted that there were several errors in the proceedings, including an improper jury selection process, as well as numerous instances of misconduct by counsel on both sides during closing arguments which prejudiced the jury against the plaintiff's case. Furthermore, it was argued that certain evidence presented at trial was irrelevant to determining whether or not any of defendants had committed fraud or acted in bad faith when they sold property to Plaintiff Burgess; this evidence should have been excluded from consideration by jurors and could have swayed their decision-making process unfairly against him. Ultimately, it was concluded that these issues combined with other procedural irregularities meant Plaintiff Burgess did not receive due process under law and deserved another chance for his day in court before a properly constituted tribunal free from bias or prejudice towards either side’s position