In this case, Godfrey Lessieur, Abram Augustine and Mary W. his wife, Thomas H. Dawson, Richard J. Watson and Sarah his wife, Palmelia E. Dawson, Laura A. Dawson and George W. Dawson (infants) by their guardian Thomas H., were the plaintiffs in error against defendant Thomas Price. The dispute was over a tract of land located in Stoddard County Missouri that had been granted to Abraham Augustin by the United States government under an act of Congress passed on April 24th 1820 for military services rendered during the War of 1812; however it was later sold to Price without consent from any party involved with Augustin’s estate or heirs at law which is why they brought suit against him claiming title to said land as well as damages for trespass upon it since he took possession after purchase without permission from them or anyone else who could have given such authority legally speaking . After much deliberation between both parties ,the court ruled in favor of defendants stating that although plaintiff's claim may be valid ,they failed to prove ownership due lack evidence presented before them thus dismissing all claims made by plaintiffs

In the case of Godfrey Lessieur, Abram Augustine and Mary W. His Wife, Thomas H. Dawson, Richard J. Watson and Sarah His Wife, and Palmeila E. Dawson, Laura A. Dawson and George W.Dawson Infants by Thomas H., their Guardian v Thomas Price the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from an infant plaintiff to defendant was valid or not as it had been signed without court approval as required by law at that time for such transactions involving minors under 21 years old . The majority opinion held that since no fraud could be proven in this particular case then the deed should stand despite being executed without court approval due to its lack of legal authority over infants’ contracts with adults prior to 1851 when laws were passed requiring such consent before any contract between them could be legally binding on both parties involved . However , Justice McLean dissented arguing that even if there is no proof of fraud in this instance , it does not change the fact that these types of contracts are void ab initio (from inception) unless approved by a court beforehand which renders all subsequent actions taken based upon said contract invalid including any deeds made after its execution .