This US Supreme Court case involved Matthew Cunningham, the plaintiff in error, and Mary W.W. Ashley, executrix and sole legatee of Chester Ashley who was deceased at the time of this case. William E. Ashley, Frances A. Ashley (now Frances A Freeman) and Henry W. Ashley were also named as defendants with Mary acting as guardian for Henry W.. The dispute arose from a contract between Matthew Cunningham and Chester Ashely that stated if certain conditions were met then Mr Cunningham would receive $1000 from Mr Ashely's estate upon his death; however when he died no money had been paid to him by Mrs Ashely or any other defendant so he brought suit against them all seeking payment of what was owed to him under the terms of their agreement . Ultimately it came before the US Supreme Court where they ruled that although there may have been some evidence presented which suggested that Mr Ashleys intentions were not to be bound by his promise ,the court found sufficient proof existed showing an intention on both parties part to enter into a binding contract thus making it enforceable .

In the case of Matthew Cunningham v. Mary W.W Ashley, Executrix and Sole Legatee of Chester Ashley, Deceased, and William E. Ashley, Frances A. Ashley (now Frances A. Freeman), and Henry W. Ashley by Mary W.W Ashely his Guardian, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it is not in writing as long as there is evidence to prove its existence such as witnesses or other forms of proof that can demonstrate an agreement had been made between both parties involved in the dispute at hand . The majority opinion held that since this particular contract was not written down on paper it could not be enforced under any circumstances which would have resulted in unfairness for one party over another due to lack of documentation being present when they initially agreed upon their terms with each other prior to entering into said agreement..