This case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a slave. The plaintiff, Davidson, claimed that he had purchased the slave from Taylor and was entitled to possession of him. However, Taylor argued that he had never sold the slave and still owned him. In its ruling on this case, the Supreme Court held in favor of Davidson by finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove that an agreement for sale had been made between them and thus Davidson was legally entitled to possess the slave. Furthermore, it also found that even if no such agreement existed then under Virginia law at the time any verbal contract for sale would be valid as long as it could be proven with clear evidence which in this instance it could be shown through witnesses who heard both parties agree upon terms for purchase.

In Davidson and Another v. Taylor, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy, but Justice Story dissented from this ruling. He argued that while the court should discourage people from entering into agreements which violate laws, there is no reason why those who do so should not be allowed to benefit from their bargain as long as it does not harm any third party or injure public interests. Furthermore, he noted that refusing to enforce these contracts would create uncertainty for businesses and individuals alike since they would never know when a contract might become unenforceable due to some unforeseen legal issue arising after its formation. Ultimately, Justice Story concluded that enforcing such contracts did not conflict with public policy and thus should remain valid under the law.