In the case of Joshua B. Bond, Administrator of Mary Ann Cade v. James Brown, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a slave owner could recover damages for an injury caused by another person to their slave. The plaintiff argued that they should be able to do so because slaves were considered property and thus any damage done to them should be compensated in the same way as if it had been done to any other piece of property owned by the plaintiff. The defendant argued that since slaves were not considered citizens under U.S law at this time, they did not have legal rights and therefore no compensation could be awarded for injuries inflicted upon them by someone else’s negligence or malice. After considering both arguments, the court ruled in favor of the defendant on grounds that slavery was illegal according to U.S law and therefore no compensation could be given for damages incurred due to its existence or practice within American society at this time period

In the case of Joshua B. Bond, Administrator of Mary Ann Cade v. James Brown, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should not be voided due to an alleged mistake in one party's understanding of its terms and conditions. The majority had ruled that because there was evidence suggesting that Cade did not understand what she was signing when entering into the contract with Brown, it should be declared voidable by her administrator; however, Justice McLean argued against this decision on grounds that contracts are binding agreements and must be upheld unless fraud or misrepresentation can be proven. He further stated that if mistakes were allowed as a basis for avoiding contractual obligations then no agreement would ever stand firm since all parties could claim ignorance or misunderstanding at any time after making their commitment to each other under such an arrangement.