William A. Carr, appellant, brought a case against Samuel H. Duval and others, appellees in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an agreement between Carr and Duval to purchase land from one William Wirtz located in Washington County, Maryland. According to the contract between them both parties were obligated to pay for their respective shares of the property at different times; however when it came time for payment by Duval he refused claiming that there had been no consideration given on his part as promised by Carr which would have made him liable under law for his portion of payment due on said property. The court found that while there may not have been any consideration provided by Carr as promised this did not absolve Duval from fulfilling his obligation according to their agreement since they had already entered into a binding contract with each other prior to any alleged lack of consideration being provided or discussed furthering making it enforceable under law regardless if such considerations existed or not thus ruling in favor of appellant William A.Carr

In the case of William A. Carr vs. Samuel H. Duval and Others, the dissenting opinion argued that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer in order to prevent him from executing his duties under federal law. The dissent argued that this was an unconstitutional interference with the powers of Congress and violated separation of powers principles established by the Constitution. Furthermore, it was argued that if such injunctions were allowed then states would be able to interfere with any action taken by Congress or its officers which could lead to chaos and confusion in our system of government as well as undermine national sovereignty over matters delegated exclusively to Congress by Article I Section 8 Clause 18 (the Necessary & Proper Clause). In conclusion, it was asserted that allowing such injunctions would be detrimental not only for our nation's legal system but also for its political stability since it would allow states too much power over issues reserved solely for federal control under the Constitution.