In the case of William H. Fresh v. Riah Gilson, Christopher Midlar, and James Fresh, William H. Fresh was suing for damages due to a breach of contract between himself and the defendants in error (Riah Gilson et al). The dispute arose from an agreement made by all parties that stipulated that if any one party failed to pay their portion of a debt owed on certain lands then each other party would be liable for payment instead. When it came time to make payments on the land, only two out of three parties paid their share; as such, William H. Fresh sued Riah Gilson et al for his portion plus interest and costs associated with bringing suit against them. Ultimately however, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Riah Gilson et al because they had not been given proper notice before being held responsible for paying off another's debt - something which is required under law when dealing with contracts involving multiple people or entities.

In the case of William H. Fresh v. Riah Gilson, Christopher Midlar, and James Fresh, the dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff should not be allowed to recover damages from his brother's estate for a debt owed by their father before his death. The dissent reasoned that since there was no evidence presented in court showing any agreement between William and his father regarding repayment of this debt after his death or any other arrangement indicating an intention to make such payment, it would be unjust to allow him to collect on it now. Furthermore, allowing recovery in this situation could set a dangerous precedent whereby creditors could attempt to hold family members liable for debts incurred by another family member without sufficient proof of an agreement or understanding between them about how those debts will be repaid upon death.