In the case of Hugh v. Higgs and Wife, Plaintiff in Error Hugh brought a suit against Defendants in Error Higgs and his wife for an alleged trespass on land owned by Hugh. The dispute arose when the defendants entered onto plaintiff's property to cut down trees without permission from him or any other authority. At trial, it was determined that although there had been no actual damage done to the property itself, damages were still due as compensation for loss of use of said land while they trespassed upon it. Ultimately, the court found in favor of Plaintiff in Error Hugh and awarded him damages accordingly.

In Hugh v. Higgs and Wife, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by Hugh in favor of Higgs and his wife should be enforced. The majority opinion held that it should not because there had been no consideration for the deed given by either party. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision on the grounds that although there may have been no consideration exchanged between them at the time of execution, Hugh had received something valuable in return: namely, an assurance that he would receive payment from Higgs if he ever needed it. Furthermore, Johnson argued that even if there was no actual exchange of money or goods between them at the time they entered into their agreement, such a transaction could still be valid under certain circumstances since "the law will imply a sufficient consideration." Thus according to Johnson's dissent, while it is true that neither party gave anything tangible when entering into their agreement with each other; nevertheless they both gained something valuable - peace of mind - which made their contract binding and enforceable under law.