John F. Games and Nathan Gilbert brought a case against John Stiles, the executor of Walter Dunn's estate. The plaintiffs argued that they had purchased certain lands from Dunn before his death, but Stiles refused to honor their claim on the grounds that he was not aware of any such agreement between them and Dunn. After hearing both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Games and Gilbert, finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove an agreement between them and Dunn prior to his death. Furthermore, it held that since Stiles had accepted responsibility as executor for all matters related to Dunns estate after his passing away, he could not deny liability for this transaction either. As a result of this ruling by the Supreme Court ,Games and Gilbert were able to reclaim their rights over these lands which they had previously bought from Walter Dunn

In the case of John F. Games and Nathan Gilbert versus John Stiles, the dissenting opinion was that a court should not be able to set aside an executor's bond if it is found to be insufficient or defective. The majority opinion held that when an executor fails to provide sufficient security for his duties as required by law, then a court can set aside the bond and require additional security from him. However, Justice McLean argued in dissent that this would lead to uncertainty in business transactions since there could always be potential liability on behalf of those who have given bonds even after they had been approved by courts. He further argued that such action would also violate due process rights because it does not allow for any opportunity for defense against claims made against them before their bonds are declared invalid or insufficient. Thus, he concluded that courts should only have authority over matters related directly to administration of estates and not interfere with contracts between parties unless there is clear evidence of fraud or misconduct on part of either party involved in making such contract.