In the case of Richard Bein and Mary, his wife v. Mary Heath, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed given by Richard Bein to his wife in 1837 was valid or not. The deed had been made with consideration from both parties and conveyed land located in Ohio that belonged to Mr. Bein at the time of conveyance. However, when Mrs. Heath purchased part of this same land from Mr. Bein's son-in-law two years later she claimed that it had never been legally transferred due to lack of proper execution on behalf of Mr. Bein and therefore still belonged to him as well as her own purchase rights over it since he had sold it twice without legal authority for doing so.. The court found that although there were some irregularities present in how the deed was executed they did not invalidate its validity under Ohio law which stated that deeds must be signed by both parties before being considered binding contracts between them; thus ruling in favor of Mrs.Beins' claim over ownership rights for said property against those held by Mrs .Heath who could only prove purchase rights but no title thereto

In the case of Richard Bein and Mary, his wife v. Mary Heath, the dissenting opinion was that the court should have found in favor of Richard and Mary Bein. The dissent argued that there were two separate contracts between the parties: one for a sale of land from Richard to Mary Heath; and another contract for an exchange of lands between them. According to this second contract, if either party failed to perform their obligations under it then they would be liable for damages equal to twice what they had received as part of the agreement. In this case, it was clear that both parties had not performed their duties according to these agreements so each should be held responsible for double damages - which would mean a judgment in favor or Richard and Mary Bein. The majority opinion disagreed with this assessment but Justice Catron dissented on behalf of himself and three other justices who agreed with him on this point.