Daniel Garrard, plaintiff in error, brought a case against the lessee of Henry Reynolds and others. The dispute arose from an agreement between Garrard and Reynolds that granted Garrard permission to use certain land for agricultural purposes. According to the agreement, if either party failed to fulfill their obligations under it then they would be liable for damages. After failing to pay rent on time as required by the contract, Reynolds was sued by Garrard who sought compensation for damages caused by his breach of contract. In response, Reynold's lessees argued that they were not bound by any such agreement since they had no knowledge or involvement with it prior to taking possession of the property from him. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Garrard stating that even though Reynold's lessees had no direct involvement with or knowledge about the original contract between him and Reynolds; nevertheless they were still responsible for fulfilling its terms due to their status as successors-in-interest after taking possession of his estate upon his death.

In the case of Daniel Garrard v. Lessee of Henry Reynolds et al., Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for his land being taken without due process. He contended that, under the laws of Kentucky, where this dispute arose, an individual had a right to compensation when their property was taken by another party and used for public purposes. In this instance, it appeared as though no such compensation had been provided to Garrard despite his land having been seized and put into use by Reynolds' lessee. Therefore, McLean concluded that Garrard should be allowed to seek recompense from those responsible for taking his property without proper authorization or payment.