In J. C. F. Chirac v The Lessee of A. F. Chirac et al, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee could be held liable for unpaid taxes on land they leased from another party if the lease agreement did not explicitly state that responsibility fell upon them as part of their contractual obligations with the lessor (owner). In this case, it was determined that even though there had been no explicit mention in the contract regarding payment of taxes by either party, it should still be assumed that such an obligation would fall upon the lessee since they were receiving benefit from use and possession of said property during their term as tenant and thus should bear some responsibility for its upkeep or any associated costs related to ownership thereof; therefore, making them liable for any unpaid taxes due on said property at time when tenancy ended or expired according to terms agreed upon in original lease agreement between parties involved in dispute over same matter before court's ruling therein.

In J. C. F. Chirac v The Lessee of A. F. Chirac et al, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee had acquired title to land in Louisiana by virtue of an agreement with the original owner and his heirs that he would pay them for it over time, even though no deed or other formal document had been executed at the time of their agreement and before possession was taken by the lessee from one of those heirs who held actual possession at that time. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Story wrote for the majority opinion holding that such an arrangement did not constitute a valid transfer of title under Louisiana law because there was no written instrument conveying title between all parties involved in this case; therefore, any rights which may have existed were extinguished when they failed to execute such documents as required by state law prior to taking possession from one heir who held actual physical control over it at that time. Justice Johnson dissented on behalf of four justices arguing that since all parties agreed upon terms regarding payment for said property and took steps towards its execution (i.e., entering into negotiations), then these actions should be considered sufficient evidence demonstrating intent on both sides to convey ownership rights despite lack of formal documentation being present beforehand - thus making this transaction legally binding under Louisiana law regardless if certain requirements weren't met prior to taking possession from one party already in control over it