In the case of William Henderson v. John Anderson, Henderson brought a suit against Anderson for damages due to an alleged breach of contract. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to support the claim and dismissed it. In its ruling, the court noted that in order for a party to be held liable under contract law, they must have had knowledge or notice of their obligations at the time they entered into said agreement. Furthermore, any ambiguity in terms should be interpreted as being most favorable to the defendant since he is not responsible for drafting them himself. As such, since there was no proof that Anderson had been aware of his contractual duties when signing with Henderson nor any clear language indicating otherwise within said agreement itself; this led to dismissal of all claims against him by default

In the case of William Henderson v. John Anderson, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process under the law. He noted that there was no evidence presented to prove that Henderson had any knowledge or notice of an alleged contract between himself and Anderson prior to its execution, nor did it appear from the record whether such a contract existed at all. Furthermore, even if such a contract did exist, McLean contended that it should have been established by competent proof before being enforced against Henderson. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that since there was no sufficient evidence presented to establish either party's rights under this purported agreement and because neither party received proper legal protection during proceedings in lower courts, justice could only be served by reversing the judgment below and remanding for further proceedings consistent with due process of law.