Smith Hogan, Arthur S. Hogan, and Reuben Y. Reynolds were the plaintiffs in error in a Supreme Court 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 allowed Patterson to occupy certain lands owned by Smith Hogan with permission to cut timber on them for his own benefit as long as he paid rent annually or at least every two years. When payment was not made according to the terms of their agreement, Smith sued Patterson's executor (Ross) for breach of contract and damages due him under it. The Supreme Court held that although there had been no actual delivery of possession or occupancy by either party before death, yet this did not prevent recovery since there had been a valid contract entered into between them which created obligations binding upon both parties even though they may have died before performance could be completed; thus Ross was liable for any unpaid rents due prior to death plus interest accrued thereafter until full satisfaction is made by him or his representatives.

In Smith Hogan, Arthur S. Hogan and Reuben Y. Reynolds v Aaron Ross (who sued for the use of Robert Patterson), the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written, even if it is not in accordance with public policy or morality. The dissent noted that while contracts can be voided by courts when they are against public policy or morals, this was not applicable to the case at hand because there were no laws prohibiting such contracts from being made in the first place. Furthermore, since both parties had agreed to enter into an agreement which included specific terms and conditions regarding payment of money for services rendered, those terms should have been upheld regardless of whether they were deemed morally objectionable by society at large. As such, despite any moral objections one might have about enforcing such a contract under these circumstances, it was still necessary to uphold its validity according to law so as not to undermine contractual agreements more generally.