In the case of Benjamin J. Tarver v. Samuel B. Tarver, Charlotte Tarver and Patience Gibson, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a deed from an executor of a will was valid or not. The appellant argued that since he had been named as one of the beneficiaries in his father's will, he should be entitled to receive his share according to its terms; however, after his father passed away, another person had taken control over the estate and executed a deed which gave all rights under it to someone else who was not mentioned in the original will. The court found that this action by the executor was invalid because it violated both state law and public policy regarding wills; thus ruling in favor of Benjamin J. Tarver and reversing any prior decisions made on this matter at lower courts levels

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of trust executed by Benjamin J. Tarver in favor of Samuel B. Tarver and Charlotte Tarver was valid or voidable due to lack of consideration. The majority opinion held that the deed was valid because it had been supported by sufficient consideration, namely an agreement between the parties for payment of debts owed by Benjamin J. Tarver to Samuel B. and Charlotte Tarver as well as Patience Gibson, which constituted adequate legal consideration for the conveyance under Georgia law at that time. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly he argued that there were no facts presented in evidence showing any debt owing from Benjamin J.Tarver; secondly he argued that even if such debts did exist they could not constitute legal consideration since they had already been extinguished prior to execution of the deed through payment made with other property belonging to Benjamin J .Tarvers estate rather than money or goods exchanged directly with either party involved in executing said deed..