John Minor brought a case against Shurbal Tillotson to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an agreement between them concerning a debt that had been incurred by Minor and secured by Tillotson’s land. According to the agreement, if Minor paid off his debt within two years, he would be entitled to receive title of one-half of said land from Tillotson. However, when it came time for payment, there were disputes as to whether or not all conditions had been met in order for Minor to receive title. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Tillotson on grounds that although some conditions may have been fulfilled by Minor at the time he attempted payment, other essential terms remained unfulfilled which prevented him from receiving title according to their original agreement.

In the case of John Minor v. Shurbal Tillotson, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process under the law. He noted that although it was true that there were certain exceptions to this rule, they did not apply in this particular case and thus should be disregarded by the court. Furthermore, he stated that even if these exceptions did apply, they still would have failed to provide adequate protection for Minor's rights as a defendant. In conclusion, Justice McLean argued strongly against allowing any decision made without proper consideration of all relevant facts and evidence to stand as valid legal precedent.