In the case of John G. Goesele and Others v. Joseph M. Bimeler and Others, the appellants argued that a certain deed was invalid because it had been made without their knowledge or consent as parties to the contract in question. The Supreme Court held that this argument was not sufficient to render an otherwise valid deed voidable, since there is no requirement for all parties involved in a contract to be aware of its existence before it can be enforced by law. Furthermore, even if one party does not know about a particular agreement between two other parties, they are still bound by its terms unless they can prove fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of either party involved in making said agreement. This decision established precedent for future cases involving contracts where one party may have been unaware of its existence prior to enforcement by law

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the Court should have found in favor of the appellants. He believed that a contract had been formed between them and Joseph M. Bimeler when they purchased shares from him in an Ohio canal company, which was then dissolved by legislative act before it could be completed or opened for business. The majority held that no contract existed because there was no consideration given to Bimeler at the time of purchase; however, McLean disagreed with this reasoning and instead asserted that since both parties had acted upon their agreement - i.e., money exchanged hands - a valid contract did exist even though its performance became impossible due to circumstances beyond either party's control (i.e., dissolution). Therefore, he concluded that justice demanded compensation for those who were wronged as a result of such impossibility and urged his colleagues to reverse their decision accordingly.