Reuben Middleton brought a case against William McGrew to the Supreme Court. The dispute was over a contract between the two parties, in which Middleton agreed to pay McGrew for certain land that he had purchased from him. However, when it came time to make payment, Middleton refused and instead argued that there were defects with the title of the property and thus he should not be held liable for any payments due under their agreement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of McGrew and found that even though there may have been some issues with title on part of the land, this did not absolve Middleton from his contractual obligations as they related to other portions of said property. Furthermore, since no evidence was presented by either party regarding these alleged defects or how they would affect ownership rights over different parts of the land parcel at issue here, then it could not be assumed that such an issue existed at all. Thusly, Middleton's refusal to make payment constituted breach of contract and so judgment was entered accordingly in favor of McGrew

In Reuben Middleton v. William McGrew, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of conveyance from one party to another was valid when it had been signed by an attorney-in-fact on behalf of the grantor. The majority opinion held that such a deed could be valid if it met certain requirements, including being properly acknowledged and recorded in accordance with state law. However, Justice Nelson dissented from this ruling and argued that any instrument purporting to transfer title must be executed by the parties themselves or their duly authorized agents in order for it to be legally binding. He further stated that allowing attorneys-in-fact to sign deeds would lead to fraud and abuse since they are not subject to public scrutiny like other officers who can execute legal documents on behalf of others.