In the case of William J. Minter, Hiram F. Saltmarsh, and Ashley Parker v Charles Crommelin, the plaintiffs in error argued that a deed from them to Crommelin was invalid because it had been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court found that although there were some discrepancies between what was stated in the deed and what actually happened during its execution, these did not amount to fraud or misrepresentation as defined by law at the time. Therefore they held that since no legal wrong had occurred when executing this deed it should be upheld as valid despite any irregularities which may have taken place during its formation.

In the case of William J. Minter, Hiram F. Saltmarsh, and Ashley Parker v Charles Crommelin, the dissenting opinion was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a new trial due to their failure to properly serve process on Crommelin in accordance with state law. The majority held that it was sufficient for service of process to be made upon an agent or attorney-in-fact who had authority from Crommelin himself; however, Justice Nelson argued that this did not meet the requirements set forth by New York State law which required personal service on either party involved in a lawsuit. He further noted that while there may have been some confusion as to whether or not such service had taken place here, it should have been clarified before any proceedings took place and thus he would have granted a new trial so as not to violate state laws regarding proper legal procedure.