Joseph Fellows, survivor of Robert Kendle, brought a case against Susan Blacksmith and Ely S. Parker, administrators of John Blacksmith who had passed away. The dispute was over the ownership of certain lands in New York that were owned by John Blacksmith at the time of his death. Joseph Fellows argued that he should be entitled to these lands as they were part of an inheritance from Robert Kendle which included all property owned by him at the time he died. However, Susan Blacksmith and Ely S. Parker argued that since John Blacksmith had purchased some land after Robert Kendle's death but before his own passing, this land did not form part of any inheritance for Joseph Fellows and thus belonged solely to them as administrators for John's estate. After much deliberation on both sides' arguments regarding title deeds and other evidence presented during trial proceedings in lower courts, it was ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court that Joseph Fellows would indeed have rightful claim to those lands originally belonging to Robert Kendle prior to his death which formed part of his inheritance upon passing away himself; however any additional properties acquired afterwards would remain with Susan Blacksmithe and Ely S Parkers as administrators for Johns estate due their legal right under state law governing such matters

In the dissenting opinion of Joseph Fellows, Survivor of Robert Kendle v. Susan Blacksmith and Ely S. Parker, Administrators of John Blacksmith, Justice McLean argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided due to an error in the legal description contained within it. The plaintiff had purchased land from the defendant's decedent with a written agreement containing an incorrect legal description; however, both parties were aware that they were referring to the same parcel of land when entering into their contract. Justice McLean believed this was sufficient evidence for upholding their agreement as valid despite any errors in its contents since there was no fraud or misrepresentation involved on either side and both parties understood what property was being sold at the time they entered into their transaction. He concluded by stating that if courts are allowed to void contracts based solely on technicalities such as these then all future agreements would become uncertain and unreliable which could have far-reaching consequences for commerce throughout society.