John D. Bush, the appellant in this case, brought a suit against Jacob Marshall and William B. Whitesides for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the lower court had erred in its decision to grant a new trial on the grounds that there was no evidence presented at trial to support Bush’s claim of fraud or mistake by Marshall and Whitesides. The Court found that while it was true that there were some discrepancies between what was stated in the contract and what actually occurred, these discrepancies did not amount to fraud or mistake as defined under Virginia law at the time; therefore, they could not be used as justification for granting a new trial. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Bush based on his original complaint against Marshall and Whitesides

In the case of John D. Bush v Jacob Marshall and William B. Whitesides, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it is not in writing as long as there is evidence to prove its existence. The majority opinion held that an oral agreement could not be enforced because it did not meet the requirements of a statute which required contracts to be written down in order for them to be legally binding. The dissent argued that this requirement should only apply when one party has been misled or taken advantage of by another, but since no such situation existed here, then enforcing the contract would still serve justice and uphold public policy. Furthermore, they argued that denying enforcement would lead to injustice because both parties had acted on their understanding of what was agreed upon and thus relied on each other’s promises without any intention or expectation of fraud from either side.