Erastus Corning and John F. Winslow were plaintiffs in error in a case against Peter A. Burden, which was heard by the United States Supreme Court. The dispute arose from an agreement between Corning and Winslow to purchase land from Burden for $4,000 with payments of $1,500 down and two notes of $1,250 each due at six months' intervals after the date of sale. After making the initial payment but before paying off either note, Corning died leaving his estate to be administered by his executor who refused to pay any more money on the contract as he believed it had been rescinded upon Corning's death due to its being personal in nature. The court found that there was no evidence that would support rescission or revocation of this contract so they held that it remained binding on both parties even though one party had passed away since its formation; therefore they ruled in favor of Burden requiring full payment according to their original agreement including interest accrued during litigation proceedings until paid off completely.

In Erastus Corning and John F. Winslow v. Peter A. Burden, the dissenting opinion argued that the court should have found in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim for damages due to a breach of contract between them and defendant Peter A. Burden regarding certain railroad bonds issued by Albany City Corporation (ACC). The dissent noted that ACC had been authorized by an act of legislature to issue such bonds, which were then sold at public auction with notice given to all potential bidders including both parties involved in this case; thus, it was clear that there was a valid contract between them concerning these bonds as well as consideration paid for said agreement. Furthermore, evidence showed that Mr. Burden failed to fulfill his obligations under this contract when he refused delivery of the purchased bond certificates after payment had already been made; therefore, it was concluded that he should be held liable for any losses suffered by either party due to his breach of duty and negligence in not fulfilling his contractual duties towards them according to law - especially since no other legal remedies existed at the time for recovering such damages from him or anyone else responsible for issuing those particular railroad bonds mentioned earlier on behalf of ACC.