In this case, William C. S. Ventress et al., executors of Lovic Ventress, deceased, were the plaintiffs in error and Neal Smith was the administrator of John Clark, deceased. The dispute centered around a debt owed by John Clark to Lovic Ventress before his death that had not been paid off yet at the time of his passing away. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's claim for payment from Neal Smith as administrator on behalf of John Clark's estate since it was established that there existed an obligation between them prior to Mr. Clark’s death which had not been fulfilled yet when he passed away and thus should be honored by his estate after him according to law.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the court should have found in favor of Ventress and his executors. He believed that the lower court had correctly decided to award damages for a breach of contract between Clark and Ventress. According to McLean, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that Clark had agreed to pay an annuity out of his estate after he died; however, Smith refused to honor this agreement when he became administrator. Furthermore, McLean noted that even if there were some ambiguity in the terms or conditions surrounding the contract between Clark and Ventress, it would be up to Smith as administrator—not a jury—to decide whether those ambiguities could be resolved without awarding damages. Therefore, because no such resolution was attempted by Smith before refusing payment on behalf of Clark's estate, Justice McLean concluded that judgment should have been entered against him for breaching their agreement with Ventress.