William Hardeman and D. Hardeman brought a case against Edward Anderson to the Supreme Court in 1846. The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully evicted from their land by Anderson, who was acting as an agent of another party. They claimed that he had failed to provide them with proper notice before evicting them and sought damages for the loss of their property rights. The court found in favor of the defendants, ruling that they were not entitled to any compensation because there was no evidence that Anderson acted beyond his authority or outside of his duties as an agent when carrying out the eviction order. Furthermore, it held that even if he did act improperly, such actions would be considered those of his principal rather than himself and thus could not be used as grounds for legal action against him personally.

In the case of William Hardeman and D. Hardeman v. Edward Anderson, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written regardless of any subsequent changes in circumstances or conditions. The majority opinion had held that since one party to the contract was no longer able to fulfill their obligations due to changed circumstances, they were not bound by it anymore and could not be sued for breach of contract. However, Justice McLean disagreed with this ruling on the grounds that contracts are binding agreements which must be honored even if unforeseen events occur after its formation; otherwise there would never be certainty in business transactions or commerce more generally. He further argued that when a person enters into an agreement they do so knowing full well what risks may arise from changing conditions and therefore should accept responsibility for them accordingly without being released from their contractual duties just because something unexpected happened afterwards.