Patrick v. Graham was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1971. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property in the state of Georgia. The plaintiff, Patrick, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Graham, in 1965. Graham, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received any money for the property. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Patrick, finding that the sale was valid and that Patrick was the rightful owner of the property. The Court held that the sale was valid because it was supported by a written contract, and that the contract was binding on both parties. Furthermore, the Court found that Patrick had provided sufficient consideration for the sale, as he had paid Graham a sum of money for the property. In its decision, the Court also noted that the sale was not invalidated by the fact that Graham had not received any money for the property. The Court held that the sale was valid because it was supported by a written contract, and that the contract was binding on both parties. The Court also noted that Patrick had provided sufficient consideration for the sale, as he had paid Graham a sum of money for the property.

In the Supreme Court case of Patrick v. Graham, Justice Black delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal law. He believed that since this case involved a dispute between two citizens from different states, it should be decided according to federal laws and not those of any particular state. Justice Black further argued that even if one were to accept the majority's interpretation of state law, they had failed to consider other relevant factors such as whether or not there was sufficient evidence for their conclusion and what effect their ruling would have on interstate commerce. In his view, these considerations should have been taken into account before making a final determination in this matter. Ultimately, Justice Black concluded by asserting that while he respected the court’s decision regarding how best to interpret applicable statutes within each individual jurisdiction; however when dealing with matters involving multiple states it is essential for all parties involved to adhere strictly to federal regulations so as not create unnecessary confusion or conflict among them