John Pollard and his lessees brought a case against John Hagan and his defendants in error. The dispute was over the title to certain lands located in the state of Virginia. Pollard argued that he had acquired legal title to the land through an act of assembly passed by Virginia's General Assembly, while Hagan claimed that he held superior rights due to a prior grant from Lord Fairfax. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Hagan, ruling that although Pollard may have obtained legal title under Virginia law, it did not supersede any prior grants made by Lord Fairfax or other proprietors before him. Furthermore, they ruled that since these earlier grants were valid at common law when they were issued, their validity could not be affected by subsequent legislation enacted after their issuance. As such, the court found for Hagan on all counts and dismissed Pollards' claim for lack of merit.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in 1825 and subsequently assigned to another party could be enforced. The majority opinion held that it could not because of an intervening statute which prohibited such contracts from being enforced after 20 years. However, the dissenting opinion argued that since there was no evidence of fraud or mistake on either side when the original contract was entered into, it should still be enforceable despite any intervening statutes. Furthermore, they argued that if one party were allowed to benefit from their own negligence by relying on a statute passed after entering into a valid agreement with another party then all other contracts would become insecure and uncertain. Therefore, they concluded that even though an intervening law may have changed since 1825 when the contract was originally formed, it should still remain binding upon both parties as long as there is no evidence of fraud or mistake at its inception.