In the case of William Yeaton and Others v. David Lenox and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced or not. The appellants argued that they had entered into an agreement with Lenox for him to build them a mill on their land in exchange for payment; however, when it came time to pay, they refused due to disagreements over certain details of the construction project. The respondents countered that these details were part of the original agreement and thus must be honored by both sides if either side wished for it to remain valid. After considering all evidence presented before them, including testimony from witnesses who had been present at negotiations between both parties as well as other relevant documents, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Lenox's argument that he was entitled to full payment according his terms outlined in their initial contract. This decision set an important precedent regarding contracts being upheld even when there are disputes about minor aspects related thereto so long as those issues were agreed upon beforehand by both involved parties.

In the case of William Yeaton and Others v. David Lenox and Others, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a certain piece of land in Kentucky belonged to either party. The majority opinion held that it did not belong to either party, as they both had failed to prove their respective claims. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were sufficient facts presented by Yeaton's side which should have been taken into consideration; secondly, he believed that if those facts were considered then it would be clear that Yeaton had a valid claim over the disputed property. He concluded his dissent by stating "I am therefore constrained to differ from my brethren."