In the case of Henry Mathewson v. John H. Clarke, Mathewson was appealing a decision made by the Circuit Court for Washington County in Maryland that had granted an appeal from Clarke, who served as administrator of Willard W. Wetmore's estate. The dispute arose when Wetmore died intestate and left behind property which he had purchased with funds loaned to him by Mathewson prior to his death. In order for Mathewson to receive compensation for his loan, he sought repayment from Wetmore’s estate through a writ of debt issued against it; however, this writ was dismissed on grounds that it lacked sufficient evidence regarding the terms of their agreement and thus could not be enforced against the estate itself or its administrators like Clarke. On appeal before the Supreme Court, Justice Grier delivered an opinion affirming dismissal of Mathewson’s claim due to lack of proof concerning any express contract between himself and Wetmore regarding repayment upon death or otherwise; without such proof there could be no legal basis upon which recovery could be awarded in favor of either party involved in this case

Justice McLean delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the court should not have reversed the decision of the lower court, which had found for respondent Mathewson. Justice McLean reasoned that there was no evidence to support a finding of fraud on behalf of Wetmore's administrator Clarke and thus Mathewson's claim against him should stand. Furthermore, he noted that even if Clarke had acted improperly, it would be unjust to hold him liable since he was merely acting as an agent for Wetmore and did not personally benefit from any alleged wrongdoings. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that reversing the lower court’s ruling without sufficient proof or legal justification would set a dangerous precedent and undermine public confidence in judicial proceedings.