In the case of William S. Bodley and Thomas E. Robbins v. William M. Goodrich, the appellants argued that they had a right to use a certain road in order to access their property, as it was necessary for them to do so in order to reach their land from the public highway. The appellee contended that he owned an exclusive right-of-way over this road and thus could prevent others from using it without his permission or payment of compensation for its use. The Supreme Court ruled against the appellants, finding that while there may have been some evidence indicating prior usage by other parties, such usage did not amount to an established legal right on behalf of those parties; rather, only if such rights were acquired through prescription or grant would they be legally binding upon all subsequent owners of the land in question - including both appellant and appellee here - regardless of any prior knowledge thereof by either party involved in this dispute at hand.

In the case of William S. Bodley and Thomas E. Robbins v. William M. Goodrich, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should not be voided due to an alleged mistake in one party's understanding of it unless there is clear evidence that such a mistake occurred and caused harm to the other party involved in the agreement. The dissent argued that if this were allowed, then any contract could be easily invalidated by simply claiming ignorance or misunderstanding on behalf of one party without providing proof for their claim; thus undermining contracts as legal instruments altogether since they would no longer have any real binding power over those who enter into them voluntarily with full knowledge of its terms and conditions at hand. Furthermore, allowing such claims would also open up opportunities for fraudsters to take advantage of unsuspecting individuals by making false promises or misrepresenting facts about what is being agreed upon while still holding them legally responsible for fulfilling their end of the bargain regardless if they had been misled or not beforehand