In the case of William F. Cary and Samuel T. Cary v Edward Curtis, the plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to a portion of land in Ohio which had been granted by Congress to their father, John B. Cary, for his service during the Revolutionary War. The defendants claimed that they had purchased this same property from another individual who held title to it at the time of purchase and thus should be allowed to keep it as their own property. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on grounds that since Congress had already granted ownership rights over this particular piece of land to John B Carey prior to its sale by any other party, those rights could not be transferred or sold without first obtaining permission from Congress itself – something which was never done in this instance and therefore rendered all subsequent sales invalid under law.

In the case of William F. Cary and Samuel T. Cary v Edward Curtis, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The majority opinion had held that an oral agreement made by one party was sufficient to modify a prior written contract, even though it contradicted some of its terms. The dissent disagreed with this interpretation because they believed it would lead to uncertainty in contractual obligations and could potentially encourage fraud or misrepresentation when making contracts in the future. They also noted that if such agreements were allowed then any verbal modification could be used as grounds for invalidating a previously agreed upon contract without proof of mutual assent or consideration from both sides involved in the transaction. Ultimately, they concluded that enforcing contracts according to their original terms was necessary for protecting individuals’ rights under law and ensuring fairness within commercial transactions going forward