In the case of Patrick McLaughlin v. James Swann and John S. Gittings, Garnishees of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, McLaughlin argued that he was entitled to a judgment against the canal company for wages due him as an employee. The lower court had granted a writ of garnishment in favor of two individuals who were owed money by the canal company, but McLaughlin claimed that his debt should take precedence over theirs because it was incurred first. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of McLaughlin, holding that when multiple creditors have claims against one debtor, those with prior debts must be paid before any later ones can be satisfied. This decision established important precedent regarding how creditors are prioritized when there is not enough money available to pay all debts at once.

In the case of Patrick McLaughlin v. James Swann and John S. Gittings, Garnishees of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the garnishees for wages due him as an employee of said company. He reasoned that since there is no dispute about whether or not McLaughlin had worked for the canal company, his right to receive payment should be established by law rather than by contract between himself and his employer. Furthermore, he argued that if it were necessary to prove a contract between them in order to establish this right then such proof would have been provided at trial but none was presented so therefore it must be assumed that one did not exist. Finally, Justice McLean concluded with stating that even though contracts are generally binding upon both parties they do not necessarily supersede laws enacted by Congress which provide protection for employees who may otherwise lack legal recourse against their employers when wages are withheld without cause or justification