In this Supreme Court case, Mary Deneale and Nancy Patton Deneale were the plaintiffs in error. They had brought a suit against John Archer and John W. Stump, who served as executors of the estate of John Stump, deceased. The dispute was over an agreement between George Deneale (Mary's husband) and John Stump regarding land that had been sold to them by William Hite in 1817. According to the agreement, George was obligated to pay $1,000 for his portion of the land; however he only paid $500 before his death in 1826. Afterward Mary took up her husband’s obligations but failed to make any payments on it until 1830 when she made a payment of $100 towards what remained due on her late husband’s debt ($400). In response to this action by Mary, Archer and Stump filed a bill with equity court seeking full repayment from both parties for their respective portions of the debt plus interest accrued since 1817 when they purchased it from Hite. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while there may have been some evidence indicating that George intended not to be held liable for more than half or even one-third of what he owed at his death; such intention could not be proven conclusively so therefore both parties must bear equal responsibility for paying off their debts according to terms set forth in original contract with William Hite back in 1817

In the dissenting opinion of Mary Deneale, Executrix of George Deneale, and Nancy Patton Deneale v. John Archer and John W. Stump, Executors of John Stump, a dispute arose over whether or not an agreement between two parties was legally binding. The majority opinion held that the agreement was invalid due to lack of consideration; however Justice McLean dissented from this decision on the grounds that there had been sufficient consideration for it to be valid. He argued that although no money exchanged hands in order for the contract to be formed, both parties had made promises which constituted adequate consideration under common law principles - namely that each party would receive something valuable in exchange for their promise (in this case land). Furthermore he noted how such agreements were commonly accepted as valid contracts at the time when they were made and should therefore still hold legal weight today despite any changes in laws since then. In conclusion Justice McLean believed that if one party could back out without consequence after having received what they wanted from another party then it would lead to unfairness within society as a whole and thus urged his colleagues to uphold this particular contract as being legally binding upon all involved parties.