Smith Hogan, Arthur S. Hogan and Reuben Y. Reynolds were plaintiffs in error in a case against Aaron Ross who was suing for the use of Robert Patterson. The dispute arose from an agreement between Smith Hogan and Patterson that provided for the sale of certain slaves to be used as security on a debt owed by Smith to Patterson. When Smith failed to pay off his debt, Patterson sued him with Ross acting as his agent or attorney-in-fact. The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence presented showing any authority given by Patterson to Ross other than what is stated in the record, it could not be assumed that he had such power; thus, judgment should have been rendered for the defendants instead of being awarded to plaintiff's representative (Ross).

In Smith Hogan, Arthur S. Hogan, and Reuben Y. Reynolds v Aaron Ross (who sues for the use of Robert Patterson), the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided simply because it was made without consideration or in violation of law. The dissent noted that while contracts made with minors are voidable at their option, this case did not involve a minor but rather an adult who had full capacity to enter into a binding agreement with another party. Furthermore, even if there were some legal infirmity in the contract itself due to lack of consideration or illegality under state law, such defects could have been remedied by allowing damages instead of rescission as requested by plaintiff's counsel. Ultimately, the dissent concluded that since both parties entered into an agreement voluntarily and fully aware of its terms and conditions they should be held accountable for fulfilling their obligations according to those terms regardless any potential legal issues surrounding it.