James Rhodes brought a case against William B. Farmer, William Fellows, and Cornelius Fellows in the United States Supreme Court. The dispute was over land that had been sold to Rhodes by Farmer and his associates for $1,000 but which they later claimed belonged to them instead of him. In their defense, the defendants argued that there were two separate deeds involved in the sale: one from Farmer and another from Fellows & Co., with whom he was associated at the time of purchase; however, this argument failed as it could not be proven that either deed existed or had ever been executed. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Rhodes on all counts due to lack of evidence presented by defendants proving ownership rights over said property.

In the case of James Rhodes v. William B. Farmer, William Fellows and Cornelius Fellows, Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He noted that under Ohio law, an executor or administrator is not liable for debts incurred by their predecessor unless they have expressly assumed them; thus, as Rhodes had failed to prove any such agreement between himself and Farmer (the deceased), there could be no liability on his part. Furthermore, McLean argued that even if it were found that Farmer had indeed assumed responsibility for the debt owed by his predecessor - something which was never proven - then it would still be impossible to hold him accountable since he had already passed away at the time of judgment being rendered against him. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that while sympathy may have been due towards Rhodes' plight in this matter given its unfortunate circumstances, legal principles must nevertheless take precedence over emotion when determining justice in a court of law; therefore he dissented from the majority opinion on this case