John Randel, Jun. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court against William Linn Brown in 1844 over a dispute concerning an agreement between them for the sale of land in New York City and its environs. The appellant argued that he had been induced by false representations made by Brown to enter into the contract, which was subsequently breached when Brown refused to convey title as agreed upon or return his money deposit on the purchase price of $3500. The court found that there were no grounds for rescission due to fraud or misrepresentation because it could not be proven that any such statements were knowingly false at the time they were made; however, it did find sufficient evidence of breach of contract and awarded damages accordingly with interest from date of default until payment was received by Randel. In conclusion, John Randel won his case against William Linn Brown and was awarded damages plus interest from date of default until payment was received by him

In the case of John Randel, Jr. v. William Linn Brown, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed given by an infant (a person under legal age) is valid and binding upon him when he reaches adulthood. The majority opinion held that such a deed would be voidable at the option of the infant once they reached legal age; however, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, that it violated natural justice as infants are not capable of understanding or consenting to contracts; secondly, that it contravened public policy as allowing minors to avoid their contractual obligations could lead to fraud and abuse in commercial transactions. He argued instead for a rule whereby any contract made with an infant should be void ab initio (from its inception), thus protecting both parties involved in such agreements from potential harm or exploitation due to lack of knowledge or capacity on either side.