Edward Herndon, appellant, brought a case against James C. Ridgway, Eri Ridgway, William H. Gasque and Henry Davis in the Supreme Court of Georgia. The dispute was over an agreement between Herndon and the defendants to purchase land from them for $3200 with payment due within two years of signing the contract. When it came time to pay for the land however, Herndon claimed that he had been misled by false representations made by one or more of the defendants regarding certain improvements on said property which were not actually present when he purchased it. He argued that these misrepresentations constituted fraud and therefore relieved him from his obligation to make full payment under their original agreement as well as any interest accrued since then. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Herndon finding that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial proving fraudulent misrepresentation on behalf of one or more parties involved in this transaction thus relieving him from paying back either principal or interest owed according to their original contract terms

In the dissenting opinion of Edward Herndon v. James C. Ridgway, Eri Ridgway, William H. Gasque and Henry Davis, Justice McLean argued that the court should have considered evidence presented by Herndon in support of his claim to a tract of land located in Georgia which had been sold to him by an Indian chief named Mico Hadjo prior to 1802 when Georgia ceded its western lands to the United States government. He believed that this evidence was sufficient for Herndon's title deed and would have allowed him legal possession over the property despite it being part of federal territory at the time he purchased it from Mico Hadjo. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued that even if there were some irregularities with regard to how Herndon acquired his title deed or whether or not he had paid full consideration for it as required under state law at the time, these issues should be addressed through equity rather than denying him ownership altogether on technical grounds alone without considering all relevant facts surrounding his case.