Reuben Withers, appellant, brought a suit against his brother John Withers, appellee. Reuben alleged that he had been wrongfully deprived of the possession and use of certain slaves by his brother. The Supreme Court found in favor of John on the grounds that Reuben had voluntarily relinquished control over these slaves to him as part of an agreement between them. Furthermore, it was determined that this agreement was valid and binding under Virginia law at the time it was made. As such, the court ruled in favor of John and dismissed Reuben's claim for damages or restitution related to these slaves.

In Reuben Withers v. John Withers, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a deed of trust executed by Reuben in favor of his brother John was valid and enforceable. The majority opinion held that it was not because the deed did not contain any consideration for its execution, making it an invalid contract under Virginia law. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on the grounds that there had been sufficient consideration to make the agreement binding between them: namely, their mutual promises to perform certain acts as part of their arrangement. He argued that these promises constituted valuable considerations which should be taken into account when determining if a contract is legally binding or not. Furthermore, he noted that even though no money exchanged hands at the time of signing, both parties were still obligated to fulfill their respective obligations under Virginia law and thus could be sued for breach if they failed to do so. Ultimately then Justice McLean concluded that although there may have been some technical deficiencies in how Reuben's deed was drafted up initially; nevertheless it should still be considered valid given all other relevant factors involved in this case