In the case of Charles W. Gazzam v. Lessee of Elam Phillips and Mary his Wife, and Ashbey W. Etheridge, Gazzam was suing for a writ of error to reverse a judgment against him in an ejectment suit brought by the defendants. The dispute arose from land that had been sold to Gazzam by one William Hays who held title through two separate deeds; however, it was later discovered that Hays did not have legal authority to convey either deed as he had already previously conveyed them both away prior to selling them again to Gazzam. As such, the Supreme Court found in favor of the defendants on grounds that they were rightful owners due to their possession being derived from valid titles which predated those granted by Hays’ unauthorized sale with no right or interest vested in Gazzam as a result thereof.

In the case of Charles W. Gazzam v. Lessee of Elam Phillips and Mary his Wife, and Ashbey W. Etheridge, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given proper notice before being evicted from their property by the defendants. He believed that due process should have been followed to ensure fairness for all parties involved in this dispute over land ownership rights. The majority decision was based on an 1837 statute which stated that if someone is occupying another's land without permission or legal title, then they can be removed with only three days' notice; however, Justice McLean felt this did not apply to Mr Gazzam as he had held possession since 1835 when no such law existed at the time and thus could not be retroactively applied against him now. Furthermore, even if it were applicable here he still thought more than three days’ notice should have been provided so as to give Mr Gazzam ample opportunity to contest any claims made against him regarding his occupancy rights on said property prior to eviction proceedings taking place