Joseph Evans and Sterling H. Gee were involved in a dispute that was brought before the United States Supreme Court in 1840. The case revolved around an agreement between the two parties, wherein Evans agreed to sell his land for $1,000 with half of it being paid up front and the other half due at a later date. However, when Gee failed to pay off the remaining balance on time as per their agreement, Evans sued him for breach of contract. In its ruling, the court found that although there had been no written evidence presented by either party regarding their original agreement or any extensions made thereafter; based on circumstantial evidence provided by both sides during trial proceedings they determined that there had indeed been an extension granted which allowed Gee more time to make payment without penalty from Evans. As such, they ruled in favor of Gee and dismissed all claims against him from Evan's suit.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Joseph Evans vs. Sterling H. Gee argued that the court should not have reversed a decision by the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland. The dissent noted that there was no error in fact or law on behalf of either party and thus it would be inappropriate to reverse the lower court's ruling without any evidence of such an error being present. Furthermore, they argued that if this precedent were set then it could lead to further confusion and uncertainty as far as how courts are expected to rule when presented with similar cases in future proceedings. Ultimately, while recognizing their colleagues' right to disagree with them, they concluded that reversing a decision based solely on disagreement is wrong and should not be allowed under any circumstances due to its potential implications for judicial consistency going forward.