This case was a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Georgia. The plaintiffs, Ayers and another, claimed that they had purchased the land from the defendant, Watson, in 1867. Watson, however, argued that he had never sold the land and that the deed of sale was a forgery. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the deed of sale was valid and that Watson had indeed sold the land to the plaintiffs. The Court based its decision on the fact that the deed of sale had been recorded in the county courthouse, which was sufficient evidence to prove that the deed was valid. Furthermore, the Court noted that Watson had not taken any action to challenge the deed of sale for over twenty years, which was further evidence that he had indeed sold the land. Finally, the Court found that the plaintiffs had acted in good faith in purchasing the land and that they had no knowledge of the forgery. As a result, the Court ruled that the deed of sale was valid and that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the land.

In the case of Ayers & Another v. Watson, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law and would lead to unjust results. He noted that under existing precedent, when two parties enter into a contract for goods or services, they are both bound by its terms regardless of any subsequent changes in circumstances. In this case, Watson had agreed to pay $1 per acre for land owned by Ayers and another party; however, due to unforeseen events such as drought and other natural disasters beyond their control, it became impossible for them to fulfill their obligations under the contract. Justice Field argued that since neither party could be held responsible for these unforeseeable events outside of their control - nor should either be forced into bankruptcy because of them - then no one should suffer from being unable to perform what was originally agreed upon between them. Therefore he concluded that if there were damages caused by non-performance due to these external factors then those damages should not fall solely on one side but rather shared equally among all parties involved in order ensure fairness and justice is served accordingly.