In Thomas Kearney, et al. v. John I. Taylor and Others, the appellants were challenging a judgment of the Circuit Court for Washington County in Maryland that had granted title to certain lands to the respondents based on an alleged deed from one of their ancestors who was deceased at the time of trial. The Supreme Court held that since there was no proof offered by either party as to whether or not this ancestor had actually executed such a deed, it could not be established with certainty that he did so and thus his heirs would have no right to claim ownership over these lands. As such, they reversed the decision of lower court and remanded back for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

In the case of Thomas Kearney, Thomas Jordan, and Catherine his wife, Anastasia K. Thomas, Anne E. K. Cheeseborough, and Horatio N. Kearney v John I Taylor and others the dissenting opinion was that a court should not be able to set aside an agreement between two parties if it is found to have been made in good faith by both sides without any fraud or misrepresentation on either side's part. The majority opinion held that such agreements are voidable at law due to their lack of consideration but the dissent argued that this would lead to injustice as it could potentially leave one party with nothing while allowing another party who had acted in good faith to benefit from their actions despite having done nothing wrong themselves. The dissent further argued that courts should only intervene when there has been some form of wrongdoing involved rather than simply because an agreement lacked consideration which they felt was unfair given how much time and effort can go into negotiating a contract between two parties even if no money changes hands during its formation process