William Christy, plaintiff in error, brought a case against William T. Scott to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute arose from an agreement between Christy and Scott that was made in 1847 for the sale of certain real estate located in Pennsylvania. According to this agreement, Christy agreed to pay $2,000 for the property with one-half due at signing and one-half due on or before April 1st of 1848. However, when it came time for payment on April 1st of 1848 no money had been paid by either party so they entered into another contract which stated that if all payments were not made within six months then ownership would revert back to Scott without any compensation being given to Christy. When these payments were still not met after six months passed ownership reverted back as per their second contract but now Christie sought relief from the court claiming he should be compensated since he had already improved upon said land prior to its reversion back over him and thus deserved some form of remuneration from his efforts put forth towards improving it while under his possession during those 6 months period where no payments were made according tot heir first contract . Ultimately however ,the Supreme Court ruled against Christie stating that there was nothing legally binding them together once their initial 6 month period expired without payment having been rendered by either party thus making any improvements done by Christie irrelevant as far as legal standing goes .

In the case of William Christy v. William T. Scott, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted by courts to mean something different than what was agreed upon in writing. The dissent argued that it is up to the contracting parties to decide how they want their agreement worded and if one party does not like how it reads then they can choose not to enter into an agreement with the other party at all. The majority opinion had held that certain words used in a contract could be interpreted differently than what was intended by both sides when entering into said agreement; however, this interpretation would have changed some of its terms which were clearly stated in writing and thus violated basic principles of contract law according to the dissenters. They believed that such interpretations should only take place when there is ambiguity or uncertainty within an agreement's language but since none existed here, enforcing it as written was necessary for upholding justice and fairness between both parties involved.