Charles Patterson, appellant, brought a case against Edmund P. Gaines and his wife in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute arose from an agreement between Patterson and Gaines for the sale of land located in Tennessee. According to this agreement, Patterson was to pay $2,000 for the property but failed to do so within two years as stipulated by their contract. As a result, Gaines attempted to reclaim ownership of said land through legal action which prompted Patterson's appeal before the court. In its ruling on this matter, it was determined that since no payment had been made within two years as agreed upon by both parties then title reverted back to Gaines who could legally dispose of it however he saw fit without any further obligation or liability towards Patterson regarding said property transaction.

In the case of Charles Patterson v. Edmund P. Gaines and Wife, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a deed given to Patterson by Gaines' wife was valid or not. The majority opinion held that it was invalid because it had been signed without her husband's consent, which is required under Virginia law for married women at the time. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since there were no other creditors involved in this transaction and both parties had acted in good faith, equity should be applied to uphold the contract; secondly, he contended that even if equity did not apply here due to lack of consideration (payment), then common law would still allow for such contracts between spouses as long as they are made "in contemplation of marriage". Thus Justice McLean concluded that while Virginia state laws may have prohibited such transactions at the time due to their gender-based nature, federal courts should recognize them nonetheless when considering matters involving interstate commerce or diversity jurisdiction cases like this one.