Abram Sheppard and John Duncan were plaintiffs in error who brought a case against Peyton S. Graves to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an 1845 contract between them, which stated that Sheppard and Duncan would pay Graves $1,000 for his services as their agent in procuring land patents from the government on certain tracts of land they owned in Arkansas. After paying him part of what he was owed, they refused to pay any more because Graves had not obtained all the patents he promised; however, Graves argued that he had fulfilled his obligations under the contract by obtaining some of them before it expired. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Graves due to evidence showing that although there were still outstanding claims at expiration time, those claims could have been completed if given enough time and resources - something beyond both parties' control - thus making it impossible for either party to fulfill their contractual duties completely within its timeframe.

In the case of Abram Sheppard and John Duncan v. Peyton S. Graves, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had been induced to enter into it by fraud or misrepresentation. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable; however, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on the grounds that if a person has knowingly entered into an agreement under false pretenses then they should still be bound by its terms and conditions as long as there is no evidence of duress or undue influence being used against them. He argued that allowing people to escape their contractual obligations due to fraudulent inducement would lead to greater uncertainty in business transactions and ultimately harm commerce more than enforcing these agreements would do so. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that while fraud should not be tolerated, those who have willingly entered into contracts despite knowing about any deception involved should still remain obligated under said contract's terms unless it can be proven otherwise through clear evidence of coercion or unfairness in obtaining consent for said agreement