Hugh A. Garland brought a case against George M. Davis to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1846, claiming that he had been wrongfully evicted from his home and land by Davis. The court found that although there was evidence to suggest that Garland had indeed been wrongfully evicted, it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt as no written contract existed between them at the time of eviction. As such, they ruled in favor of Davis on grounds that an oral agreement alone was insufficient proof for a legal claim against him and dismissed Garland's suit without prejudice due to lack of sufficient evidence presented by either party. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding verbal contracts and their enforceability under law.

In the case of Hugh A. Garland v. George M. Davis, Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim and was not entitled to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract. He noted that there were no facts presented by either party as evidence and thus it was impossible for him to determine whether or not a valid agreement existed between them at all, let alone if one party breached it or not. Furthermore, he stated that even if an agreement did exist between them, there was no proof provided as to what its terms were so any decision would be based on speculation rather than fact-based reasoning which is contrary to established legal principles governing contracts cases such as this one. As such, Justice McLean concluded that without sufficient evidence being presented by either side regarding their respective claims and counterclaims in this matter then judgment should have been entered against both parties instead of just granting relief solely in favor of the plaintiff who had failed to provide any substantial proof whatsoever supporting his allegations against the defendant