In the case of Cutler v. Huston (1894), the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for land purchase, which included an agreement that the buyer would pay off existing mortgages on said property, could be enforced if it had not been put in writing as required by statute law at that time. The court ruled in favor of Huston, stating that while oral contracts were generally unenforceable under statute law, this particular case fell into an exception category because part performance of such agreements could make them enforceable even without written evidence. In this instance, since Mr. Cutler had already made payments towards clearing the mortgage debt and taken possession of the property before any dispute arose about enforcing their agreement's terms - his actions constituted 'part performance'. Therefore, despite lack of written proof for their contract's existence or its specific terms; it was deemed legally binding and enforceable.

The dissenting opinion in the Cutler v. Huston case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law taxing federal securities was incorrect, as it violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The dissenters believed that states should not have power over federal matters and thus cannot tax them. They contended that allowing such taxation would give individual states undue influence over national affairs, potentially leading to conflicts between state and federal authorities. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in previous rulings on similar issues where taxes on federal entities were deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of constitutional principles regarding state versus federal powers.