James Jackson, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Elias Lamphire, defendant in error. The dispute was over the ownership of certain lands located in Ohio that had been granted to Harman by the United States government. After Harman's death, his heirs sold the land to Jackson who then sought possession from Lamphire who claimed he owned it due to an earlier purchase from one of Harman's heirs. The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence presented showing any fraud or collusion between the parties involved with respect to this transaction and since all legal requirements were met for transferring title under state law at the time of sale, Jackson was entitled to possession of said lands as he purchased them legally and without knowledge or notice that they belonged already belonged to someone else. Therefore judgment was given for Jackson and against Lamphire on all issues raised by him in his writs of error.

In the case of James Jackson, on the Demise of Harman v. Hart, Plaintiff in Error vs. Elias Lamphire, Defendant in Error, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion that disagreed with the majority's decision to affirm a judgment from an Ohio court which held that a contract between two parties was void due to lack of consideration and mutuality. The dissent argued that there were sufficient facts presented at trial to support finding for either party and thus it should have been left up to jury discretion as opposed to being decided by judges without any evidence or testimony from witnesses. Furthermore, Justice McLean believed that since both parties had performed their obligations under the contract prior its termination then they should be allowed relief based on this performance rather than having it declared void altogether due solely to lack of consideration and mutuality.