Merritt M. Robinson and Marguerite his wife, Aurore Gayoso, Fernando Gayoso, and Felicite Gayoso (Appellants) brought a case against Wm. J. Minor, James C. Wilkins, and Henry Chotard (Executors of the Last Will & Testament of Katharine Minor), claiming that they had been wrongfully deprived of their inheritance from Katharine's estate due to an alleged fraudulent conveyance by her husband prior to his death in 1845. The Appellants argued that the deed was invalid because it was not executed with proper formalities as required by law at the time; however, the Executors contended that even if there were irregularities in its execution it should still be considered valid under Louisiana law since it had been accepted for recordation without objection or protest from any party involved within two years after its date of execution. After reviewing all evidence presented before them on both sides' behalfs', the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Executors finding no sufficient proof to support Appellant's claim regarding fraudulency nor lack thereof legal formality when executing said deed thus affirming lower court decision dismissing complaint filed by Appellants seeking recovery possession over property conveyed via aforementioned deed which allegedly belonged to them through inheritance rights granted upon death of decedent Katherine Minor back in 1845 .

In this case, the appellants argued that they were entitled to a portion of the estate of Katharine Minor. The executors of her will had previously denied them their claim and refused to pay them any money from the estate. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the executors in its decision, finding that there was no evidence presented by the appellants which would support their claim for a share in Katharine's estate. In his dissenting opinion, Justice McLean disagreed with this ruling and argued that while there may not have been direct proof provided by the appellants regarding their entitlement to part of Katharine's inheritance, it was reasonable for them to assume they were due something based on prior agreements between themselves and other members of her family. He further noted that if these agreements had been honored then it could be assumed that some sort of compensation or recognition should have been given to those who made such arrangements before Katherine passed away.