In the case of Joshua Mauran v. Edward Bullus, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made under duress. The plaintiff in error, Joshua Mauran, argued that he had signed an agreement with the defendant in error, Edward Bullus, while being threatened and intimidated by him. He claimed that this invalidated the contract as it was not entered into freely or voluntarily. However, after considering both sides' arguments and examining relevant legal precedents on contracts formed under duress or coercion, the court ruled against Mr Mauran's claim and held that such agreements were still enforceable despite having been made under pressure from one party to another.

In the case of Joshua Mauran v. Edward Bullus, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff should have been granted relief from the court. The defendant had obtained an attachment against property owned by Mauran and then sold it at auction without giving him proper notice or allowing him to redeem it before sale. Justice McLean believed that this was not fair and equitable treatment under law, as there were no legal grounds for such action on behalf of the defendant. He further argued that if a party is entitled to relief from any wrong done them, they should be able to obtain it through judicial proceedings regardless of whether their claim is founded upon contract or tort law principles. In conclusion, Justice McLean felt strongly that justice would only be served if Mauran's rights were protected and his losses compensated accordingly by granting him relief from the court in this case.