Joseph K. Eyre and Algernon E. Ashburner, executors of Elizabeth E. Potter, deceased, brought a case against Samuel R. Potter and Mauger London in the Supreme Court of the United States to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract on behalf of their decedent's estate. The dispute arose from a contract between Elizabeth E. Potter and her brother-in-law Samuel R., wherein he agreed to pay her $2,000 annually during his lifetime or until she received $20,000 total in exchange for relinquishing all rights to property that was owned by both parties prior to her marriage with him as well as any future inheritance from him upon his death; however it was later discovered that he had transferred some assets into another person’s name without informing Elizabeth before entering into this agreement which would have entitled her additional funds if they were included in the original agreement terms . The court ultimately found that there had been no fraud committed but instead ruled that since Samuel failed to disclose these assets at the time when they entered into this arrangement ,he could not be held liable for them now even though it resulted in less money being paid out than what should have been due under their initial agreement .

In the case of Joseph K. Eyre and Algernon E. Ashburner, Executors of Elizabeth E. Potter, Deceased v Samuel R. Potter and Mauger London, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Catron and Daniel that disagreed with the majority's ruling in favor of the executors' claim for possession over certain real estate owned by Elizabeth E. Potter at her death in 1846. The dissent argued that under Virginia law which governed this dispute, title to land passed from an ancestor to their heirs upon death without any need for probate proceedings or other formalities; thus when Elizabeth died she had already conveyed title to her children who were entitled to immediate possession regardless if they had taken legal steps such as filing a deed or obtaining letters testamentary from a court granting them authority over their mother's estate as executors sought here by Eyre & Ashburner . Furthermore, since there was no evidence presented showing any agreement between Elizabeth’s children during her lifetime regarding how ownership would be divided among them after her death nor did they take action within five years following it (as required under Virginia law) then each child held equal rights in undivided shares entitling all four parties - including defendant Samuel R Potters -to possess one fourth part each according to Justice McLean’s dissent which concluded that judgment should have been entered against plaintiffs instead due these facts not being disputed before trial began..