Adam L. Mills, John H. Gay, Charles Mullikin, John O'Fallon and William C. Wiggins were plaintiffs in error against the County of St Clair and James Harrison in a Supreme Court case from 1850. The other plaintiffs included Emily Pratte (widow of Bernard Pratte), Lewis Penguet and Therese his wife, Stephen F Niedlet and Celeste his wife, Louis V Bogy and Pelagie his wife as well as Joseph Blaine with Aimi Diane Blaine - all children or heirs at law of Bernard Pratte deceased. Lastly Melanie Christy was also listed along with Elizabeth Christy and Mary F Christy who were infants appearing by their next friend Melanie - being the only children or heirs at law of Samuel C Christy deceased. This case is an example of how complex legal disputes can be when multiple parties are involved; each party having different relationships to one another which must be taken into account for any resolution to take place successfully within the court system.

The dissenting opinion in this US Supreme Court case was that the plaintiffs should have been allowed to sue for a refund of taxes they had paid. The plaintiffs were Adam L. Mills, John H. Gay, Charles Mullikin, John O'Fallon, William C. Wiggins and several members of the Christy family - Melanie (the widow), Elizabeth and Mary F., who were all children and heirs at law of Samuel C. Christy; as well as Emily Pratte, Bernard Pratte, Therese Penguet , Celeste Niedlet , Pelagie Bogy and Aimi Blaine who were all children and only heirs at law of Bernard Pratte deceased . They argued that they had overpaid their taxes due to an error on behalf of St Clair County's tax collector James Harrison which resulted in them paying more than what was legally required by state laws regarding taxation on real estate property owned by minors or those under guardianship . The majority opinion however ruled against them stating that there was no legal basis for such a suit since it would be impossible to determine how much each plaintiff owed without going through every individual assessment record from the county office which would take too long time-wise . Despite this ruling though , Justice McLean dissented arguing that if any party is wrongfully deprived from their money then they should be able to seek restitution regardless if it takes some extra effort or not .