In Artemas L. Brooks, Ignatius Tyler, William W. Woodworth (administrator of William Woodworth and also as grantee), and James G. Wilson v John Fiske and Nicholas G. Norcross (doing business under the firm of Fiske), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from one party to another is valid if it does not contain an express warranty that there are no other claims on the property in question or any encumbrances against it. The appellants argued that such a warranty should be implied by law due to their reliance upon representations made by the respondents regarding title to certain real estate they had purchased from them; however, this argument was rejected by the court who held that since no express warranty had been given in writing at time of sale, none could be implied afterwards either through oral statements or otherwise. The decision thus established that for deeds transferring ownership rights over real estate without an explicit written guarantee about its status must stand as-is with respect to any potential liabilities associated with it unless expressly stated otherwise beforehand

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the appellants had a valid claim to the property in question. He noted that while there was evidence of an agreement between Fiske and Woodworth, it did not appear to be legally binding due to lack of consideration or mutuality. Furthermore, he argued that even if such an agreement existed, it would have been superseded by subsequent deeds from Woodworth's estate which conveyed title directly to Brooks and Tyler. Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that Brooks and Tyler were rightful owners of the land in dispute and should have been awarded possession accordingly.