Nelson F. Shelton, appellant, brought a case against Clayton Tiffin and Lilburn P. Perry to the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1848. The dispute concerned a contract between the parties for the sale of land located in Franklin County, Ohio. Shelton alleged that he had paid $1,000 as part of an agreement with Tiffin and Perry to purchase certain real estate from them but was not given title or possession of it after making payment according to their terms; thus he sought relief through legal action. In response, Tiffin and Perry argued that they were entitled to retain ownership because there had been no delivery or transfer made by either party at the time when payment was made by Shelton per their agreement - which would have been necessary for him to gain rightful title over said property under state law at that time period. Ultimately, upon review by the court it was determined that since neither party had fulfilled all contractual obligations required for valid conveyance (i.e., delivery) then no binding transaction could be established between them; therefore judgment went in favor of Tiffin and Perry who retained ownership rights over said land without any further obligation on their part towards Shelton's claim for damages due his non-performance on this matter

In the case of Nelson F. Shelton v. Clayton Tiffin and Lilburn P. Perry, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced against a third party who had not been involved in its creation or execution. The majority opinion held that such contracts were enforceable against non-parties if they had received notice of it prior to entering into any agreement with one of the original contracting parties; however, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on several grounds. He argued that allowing enforcement would create an unfair situation where innocent third parties could be bound by agreements which they knew nothing about and did not consent to, thus violating their rights as citizens under both state and federal law. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing these contracts would lead to increased litigation costs due to disputes over what constituted sufficient notice for binding effect - something which should have been resolved before any action was taken by either side in order to ensure fairness for all involved parties