In the case of James M'Bride v. The Lessee of William Hoey, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee could be held liable for damages caused by his tenant's negligence. M’Bride had leased land from Hoey and then subleased it to another party who negligently set fire to some buildings on the property, causing damage to adjacent properties owned by M’Bride. In its ruling, the court found that while a landlord is not responsible for any negligent acts committed by their tenants or those under them in possession of their property, they are still liable if they have knowledge that such an act may occur and fail to take reasonable steps towards preventing it. As such, since Hoey knew about this potential risk when he leased out his land but failed to do anything about it, he was deemed liable for all damages incurred as a result of his tenant's negligence.

In the case of James M'Bride v. The Lessee of William Hoey, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a lessee had an obligation to pay rent for land that he leased from another party when it was discovered that the original lessor did not have title to said land. In this particular case, M’Bride had leased some property from Hoey and then later found out that Hoey did not actually own it; instead, someone else held title to it. Despite this discovery, M’Bride argued that he should still be required to pay rent on the property since his lease agreement with Hoey stated nothing about ownership or title issues. However, in a dissenting opinion Justice McLean disagreed and argued that because there was no valid deed between them at all times during their contract period - due to lack of ownership by either party - any obligations under such an agreement were void and unenforceable as a matter of law. He further noted how allowing otherwise would open up opportunities for fraudsters who could enter into contracts without having any legal right over what they are leasing out in order to make money off unsuspecting parties like M’Bride who may think they are entering into legitimate agreements but end up being taken advantage of financially down the line if allowed legally binding status despite lacking proper titles or deeds themselves.