John M'Niel brought a case against Lowell Holbrook to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that Holbrook had allegedly taken on from his father, who had died without settling it. M'Niel argued that he should be able to collect on this debt as it was legally binding and enforceable under state law. However, Holbrook countered by claiming that since his father's death occurred before the passage of a new statute in Massachusetts which made such debts payable after death, he could not be held liable for them. After considering both sides of the argument, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Holbrook and found him not responsible for paying off his deceased father’s debts due to their pre-existing nature at time of death. This ruling set an important precedent regarding how states can handle inherited debts going forward and established clear guidelines about when they are or are not legally enforceable according to existing laws at any given time period

In the case of John M'Niel v. Lowell Holbrook, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have granted relief to M'Niel on his claim for damages against Holbrook. He reasoned that while there was no express contract between them, an implied contract existed based on their prior dealings and subsequent actions taken by both parties. Furthermore, he asserted that even if there were no such implied agreement, it would still be reasonable to infer from the circumstances surrounding this particular transaction that some sort of obligation had been created between them. Finally, McLean concluded by stating that since Holbrook had received something of value from M’Niel without providing any consideration in return or fulfilling his end of whatever bargain they may have made implicitly or explicitly, justice demanded compensation for him accordingly.