William Patterson brought a case against the Reverend Willis Jenks and others in which he argued that his right to freedom had been violated. He claimed that he was born free, but was illegally enslaved by Jenks and held for several years. The Supreme Court of Georgia found in favor of the defendants, ruling that Patterson's mother had been legally enslaved at the time of his birth and thus her status passed on to him as well. However, when this decision reached the United States Supreme Court it reversed it due to lack of evidence presented during trial regarding Patterson's mother's enslavement status. The court ruled that since there were no records or witnesses present who could testify about her legal enslavement status then she must be presumed free under law; therefore making William Patterson a free man with all rights associated with being so.

In the case of William Patterson vs. The Rev. Willis Jenks et al., the dissenting opinion argued that although it was true that a contract had been made between Patterson and Jenks, there were still certain conditions attached to it which had not been fulfilled by either party. Specifically, the dissent noted that while Jenkins did agree to pay for land he purchased from Patterson in installments, he failed to make any payments at all after 1821; thus making his agreement with Patterson void due to non-performance on both sides. Furthermore, even if Jenkins' failure could be excused as an act of bankruptcy or insolvency under state law - which would have allowed him some protection against creditors - this argument was irrelevant since no such laws existed when the original contract was signed in 1819. As such, the dissent concluded that neither party should be held liable for breach of contract and therefore dismissed their claims against each other without prejudice.