In the case of Beverly v. Brooke, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed given by an individual in Virginia to another person in Maryland was valid and enforceable under Maryland law. The court held that it was not, as there were certain formalities required for such deeds which had not been followed. Specifically, the deed did not contain any words of conveyance or delivery nor did it have any witnesses present at its execution; both of these elements are necessary for a valid transfer of property according to Maryland law. Furthermore, even if those requirements had been met, since one party resided outside of Maryland's jurisdiction they would still need approval from their local government before being able to legally transfer ownership over land located within that state's borders. As such, this particular deed could not be enforced and thus failed to provide legal title over the disputed property in question.

In the case of Beverly v. Brooke, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the plaintiff's claim for relief due to her failure to prove an essential element of her cause of action. He reasoned that since she had already proven all other elements necessary for recovery, it was unfair and unjust to deny her any remedy simply because she could not establish one particular fact. Furthermore, Marshall noted that there were numerous cases where courts had granted relief despite a party’s inability to prove some facts or circumstances related to their claims. Therefore, he concluded that if justice is truly served by granting equitable remedies when appropriate then this case should be no different and the plaintiff ought not be denied any form of redress due solely on account of failing to meet one requirement out many needed for success on their claim.