Isaac Landes brought a case against Joshua B. Brant to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that he was entitled to certain lands in Ohio under an act of Congress passed in 1820. The act granted land to veterans who had served during the War of 1812 and their heirs or assigns. Landes argued that he was an assignee from one such veteran, while Brant claimed title through another assignee from a different veteran. The court found for Brant on two grounds: firstly, because there were multiple assignments made by both veterans before they died; and secondly, because Landes' assignment did not meet all the requirements set out by Congress when it passed its original grant legislation in 1820. As such, this ruling established precedent regarding how grants issued under acts of Congress should be interpreted and enforced going forward.

In the dissenting opinion of Isaac Landes v. Joshua B. Brant, Justice McLean argued that the court should have found in favor of plaintiff Landes because he had a valid contract with defendant Brant for the sale and delivery of wheat at a certain price. The contract was made orally and no writing or other evidence existed to prove it; however, there were witnesses who testified that such an agreement had been reached between both parties. Furthermore, Justice McLean noted that even if there was some ambiguity as to whether or not a binding agreement had been formed between them, this should be resolved in favor of Landes since he acted on his belief that one did exist by delivering part of the wheat before any dispute arose over its terms. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that under these circumstances justice demanded judgment for plaintiff Landes against defendant Brant based on their oral contract for the sale and delivery of wheat at a certain price.