Terence Cousin, the plaintiff in error, brought a case against Fanny Labatut, widow and testamentary executrix of Evariste Blanc; Jules A. Blanc, co-executor; and other legal representatives of Evariste Blanc. The dispute was over an alleged debt owed to Cousin by Evariste before his death. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence presented to prove that such a debt existed or had been acknowledged by either party prior to the death of Evariste. Therefore, they ruled in favor of Fanny Labatut et al., finding that Cousin did not have any valid claim on the estate for repayment of this alleged debt.

In the dissenting opinion of Terence Cousin v. Fanny Labatut, Widow and Testamentary Executrix, Jules A. Blanc, Co-Executor, and Others Legal Representatives of Evariste Blanc case, Justice McLean argued that the Louisiana Supreme Court had erred in its decision to uphold a judgment against Cousin for $1050 plus interest on an alleged debt owed by his deceased father-in-law. He believed that this was not a valid claim as it was based on an oral agreement between two parties which could not be proven due to lack of evidence or witnesses who were present at the time when such agreement was made. Furthermore he stated that even if there had been some sort of verbal contract between them it would have still been invalid under Louisiana law since any agreements involving more than $500 must be written down in order to be legally binding. Therefore he concluded that no legal action should have taken place against Cousin as there is insufficient proof or evidence presented before court regarding this matter thus making him innocent from all charges brought up against him by Fanny Labatut et al representatives of Evariste Blanc