John H. Bennett and E. P. Hunt, administrators of John D. Amis, deceased, appealed a decision made by the Supreme Court of New York to the United States Supreme Court in 1851 regarding a dispute between Samuel F Butterworth and Mary Emily his wife on one side and John D Amis on the other side over land ownership rights in New York City. The case involved an agreement that was entered into between Mr Butterworth and Mr Amis for a conveyance of certain lands located within what is now known as Manhattan Island in exchange for $2,000 worth of bonds issued by the city government at that time; however when Mr Amis passed away before he could complete payment for these lands it became unclear who had legal title to them - either his estate or Mrs Butterworth's husband (Mr Butterworth). After careful consideration, the US Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Mrs Butterworth’s husband (Mr Buterwroth) finding that he had acquired full legal title to these lands due to their agreement which constituted an equitable conversion from real property into personalty prior to Mr Amis' death thus making him entitled under law as opposed to any claims made by his estate after his passing away

In the case of John H. Bennett and E. P. Hunt, Administrators of John D. Amis, Deceased v Samuel F Butterworth and Mary Emily, his wife, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written even if it was not in accordance with public policy or morality at the time it was made. The dissent maintained that when two parties enter into an agreement they are both bound to its terms regardless of whether those terms were later deemed immoral by society or contrary to public policy; thus any attempt by one party to avoid their contractual obligations on such grounds would be unjustified under law and could not be allowed in court proceedings without setting a dangerous precedent for future contracts being held invalid due to changing social norms or values over time.