In Reuben Chapman, Governor, &c., for the Use of John B. Leavitt and Rufus Leavitt v. Alexander Smith, Bolling Hall, Malcolm Smith and John G. Graham (1853), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from two brothers to their brother-in-law was valid or not. The brothers had sold land in Georgia that they inherited from their father with an agreement that if either died without issue then the other would inherit his share as well as his own; however when one of them died without issue he left a will bequeathing all of his property to his brother-in-law instead of it going back to the surviving brother who should have been entitled under the original agreement between them both. The Supreme Court held that since there was no consideration given by any party involved in this transaction it could not be enforced against those claiming title through inheritance rights according to law; thus making it invalid and unenforceable against anyone else claiming title through inheritance rights according to law at common law or equity courts in Georgia where this case originated from.

In Reuben Chapman, Governor, &c., for the Use of John B. Leavitt and Rufus Leavitt v Alexander Smith et al (1853), Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted relief to the plaintiffs because they had failed to prove their case. He noted that while there was evidence presented by both sides regarding title to certain lands, it was insufficient for either party to prevail on its claim. Furthermore, he stated that even if one side had proved its title more convincingly than the other did, this would still not be enough since neither party could show clear legal authority or precedent establishing ownership over these lands. Ultimately Justice McLean concluded that granting relief in this case would set an undesirable precedent and thus urged his colleagues on the Court to deny any such request from either side.