In the case of William B. Bend vs Jesse Hoyt, Bend brought a suit against Hoyt for damages due to trespass on his land. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bend and held that he was entitled to recover damages from Hoyt for the trespass committed upon his property. The court found that although there had been no actual physical damage done to the property, it did not matter as long as there was an intentional interference with another's possession or enjoyment of their land. Furthermore, they stated that even if no harm had been caused by such interference, still a person is liable for any injury resulting from their actions regardless of whether or not it was intended at the time they acted. This decision established precedent which has since become known as "nominal damages" and serves as an important reminder that individuals are responsible for any wrongs committed against others even when those wrongs do not result in tangible losses or injuries

In the case of William B. Bend vs. Jesse Hoyt, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from one party to another could be considered valid if it had not been properly acknowledged before a justice of the peace or other officer authorized by law. The majority opinion held that such deeds were invalid and thus unenforceable in court, but Justice McLean dissented on this point. He argued that while proper acknowledgement is certainly important for establishing legal validity, there are many cases where parties have entered into agreements without any formal recognition and yet those agreements have still been enforced by courts as binding contracts between them. In his view, requiring strict adherence to all forms would lead to an undue burden on individuals who may lack access or knowledge about how best to comply with these requirements; therefore he believed that some degree of flexibility should be allowed when considering such matters in order for justice to prevail over technicalities.