Charles King, the appellant in this case, was appealing a decision made by the Circuit Court of Washington County. The appellees were Josias Thompson and other heirs at law of George King, deceased. Charles had filed an action against them to recover possession of certain slaves that he claimed belonged to him as part of his father's estate. The Circuit Court found for the appellees on grounds that they had acquired title from their ancestor before Charles' claim arose and therefore held superior rights over him. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was determined that although there may have been some evidence supporting a finding for either party in regards to ownership or right of possession over these slaves, no such conclusive proof existed which would enable any court with jurisdiction to make a final determination between them without further proceedings being taken first. Therefore it was decided that both parties should be remanded back down into the lower courts so they could continue their dispute until one side could prove its rightful claim beyond reasonable doubt.

In the dissenting opinion of Charles King v. Josias Thompson and Others, Heirs at Law of George King, Justice Catron argued that the court should have reversed the decision made by the lower court in favor of appellees. The issue before them was whether or not a deed executed by George King to his son Charles was valid under Tennessee law. According to Justice Catron, there were two issues which needed to be addressed: firstly, whether or not an agreement between father and son could be enforced without consideration; secondly, if such agreements are enforceable without consideration then is it necessary for both parties to sign? In regards to these questions he argued that while no case had been found where an agreement between parent and child had been enforced without consideration in Tennessee courts prior to this one - they did exist elsewhere - so it would be wrong for them not consider this precedent when making their ruling on this case. Furthermore he noted that even though only one party signed the document (George) it still should have been considered as binding since there was evidence showing intent from both sides involved in creating said document. Ultimately Justice Catron concluded that due process must prevail over any technicalities which may arise during cases like these and thus urged his fellow justices on overturning the decision made by lower court in favor of appellees