William F. Bryan and Rudolphus Rouse brought a case against Robert Forsyth to the United States Supreme Court in 1856. The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully evicted from their property by Forsyth, who was acting as an agent of the state of Georgia. They claimed that he had acted without due process or legal authority when evicting them, and sought compensation for damages caused by his actions. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Forsyth, finding that he did have legal authority to act on behalf of the state government and thus could not be held liable for any damages resulting from his eviction order. This decision established precedent regarding agents' rights to act on behalf of states with regard to land disputes between private parties.

In the case of William F. Bryan and Rudolphus Rouse v. Robert Forsyth, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it is not in writing or signed by both parties. The majority opinion held that an oral agreement could not be enforced because there was no written evidence to prove its existence; however, Justice Grier argued that this would lead to injustice for those who had entered into such agreements in good faith but were unable to produce any proof of their terms due to lack of documentation. He further noted that contracts are often made orally and thus should still be enforceable as long as they meet all other requirements for validity under law, including consideration from both sides and mutual assent on the part of each party involved. In conclusion, he believed that denying enforcement based solely on lack of written evidence would create an unfair burden on individuals who have already acted upon verbal promises with reasonable expectations for fulfillment.