In Smith Hogan, Arthur S. Hogan, and Richard Y. Reynolds v Aaron Ross (who sued for the use of Robert Patterson), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not received full payment as promised in the agreement. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to damages from Ross because he failed to pay them according to their contract; however, Ross argued that he should not have been held liable since his promise was conditional upon receiving money from another person who had yet to fulfill his obligation. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Ross and found that there was no legal basis for enforcing a contract if one party did not receive what they were owed under its terms. This decision established an important precedent regarding contracts and set forth guidelines on how courts should interpret such agreements going forward.

In Smith Hogan, Arthur S. Hogan, and Richard Y. Reynolds v Aaron Ross (who sues for the use of Robert Patterson), the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided due to an alleged mistake in its execution if there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on either side. The dissent further noted that when one party has received something of value from another under a contract, it would be unjust to allow them to avoid their obligations simply because they later claim they made a mistake in entering into the agreement. In this case, although both parties may have been mistaken as to certain facts at the time they entered into their agreement, such mistakes do not render it voidable unless there was some form of deception involved which could not be established here. Therefore, according to the dissenters' view, since neither party had committed any fraudulent acts or misrepresentations during negotiations leading up to formation of this contract and each had received something valuable from it - even though one might have been mistaken about certain facts - then justice required that both sides must abide by its terms regardless.