This Supreme Court case involved Charles P Goodall, the plaintiff in error, and Joseph W. Tucker, executor of Abner Robinson who had passed away. The dispute was over a promissory note that Goodall had given to Robinson for $1,000 with interest at 6%. It was alleged by Goodall that he paid off the debt before it became due but no evidence could be found to support this claim. The court ruled in favor of Tucker as there were no documents or witnesses present to prove otherwise and thus ordered Goodall to pay the full amount plus costs incurred from legal proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion of Charles P Goodall v. Joseph W. Tucker, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff had a valid claim to the property in question and should have been granted relief by the court below. He reasoned that under Virginia law at the time, an executor was required to settle all claims against an estate before distributing any assets among heirs or legatees; as such, he believed it was unjust for Tucker to distribute Robinson's estate without first settling Goodall's claim. Furthermore, McLean noted that there were no legal grounds for denying Goodall his right to recover damages from Robinson’s estate due to his failure to file suit within three years of Robinson’s death - since this statute only applied when a party knew or ought reasonably have known about their cause of action prior to expiration of said period - which did not apply in this case given that neither party had knowledge regarding whether they would be able receive payment until after expiration date had passed. Thus, he concluded that justice demanded granting relief on behalf of Goodall and reversing judgment rendered by lower court accordingly.