This Supreme Court case involved Lloyd N. Rogers, the administrator of Eliza Park Custis, Edmund L. Rogers in his own right and as administrator of Eliza L. Rogers and Eleanor A. Rogers (the appellants) versus Joseph E. Law by Mary Robinson, his next friend (the respondent). The dispute arose from a contract between the parties that was made with consideration for services rendered to be paid at a later date when funds became available due to an inheritance from Eliza Park Custis’ estate which had not yet been settled or distributed among her heirs at law upon her death in 1853. The appellants argued that they were entitled to payment according to the terms of their agreement while the respondent claimed he was not liable since no money had been received from said estate prior to this suit being brought against him; thus there could be no breach on his part until such time as funds became available for distribution amongst all parties concerned including himself who would then receive what is owed under said contract if any remained after other creditors have been satisfied first per Virginia state law governing estates and inheritances therein during this period in history before modern probate laws were enacted into existence thereafter much later on down through time over many years henceforth afterwards accordingly so forth evermore unto eternity amen!

In the case of Lloyd N. Rogers, Administrator of Eliza Park Custis, Edmund L. Rogers, in his own right and as administrator of Eliza L. Rogers and Eleanor A. Rogers v Joseph E Law by Mary Robinson, his next friend, the dissenting opinion was that a slave owner should not be able to recover damages for loss or injury done to their slaves without proof that they were acting with due care at all times prior to the incident causing said damage or injury. The majority opinion held that an owner could recover damages even if there had been no negligence on their part; however this would set a dangerous precedent where owners could be absolved from any responsibility for how they treated their slaves since it would allow them to collect compensation regardless of whether proper care had been taken beforehand or not. The dissent argued instead that owners should only be allowed recovery when they can prove reasonable diligence in caring for their property (slaves).