Migral Davila brought a case against David and Jesse Mumford in the Supreme Court. He alleged that they had unlawfully taken possession of his land, which he claimed was granted to him by the Mexican government prior to Texas becoming part of the United States. The court found that while Davila did have legal title to the land, it could not be enforced because Texas law at the time prohibited any grants from being recognized if made after 1836 when Texas declared its independence from Mexico. Therefore, since Davila's grant was issued after this date, it could not be legally enforced and thus David and Jesse Mumford were allowed to keep their claim on the property.

In the case of Migral Davila v. David Mumford and Jesse Mumford, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it is not in writing. The majority had ruled that an oral agreement was unenforceable because it did not meet certain requirements set out by statute. However, the dissent argued that this ruling would lead to injustice as many contracts are made orally and without any written evidence or witnesses present at the time of formation. Furthermore, they noted that there were other ways to prove such agreements existed beyond just having them in writing; for example, through testimony from those involved or circumstantial evidence such as payments being made on one side after an agreement has been reached on another side. Therefore, they concluded that enforcing verbal contracts was necessary in order to protect both parties’ rights and interests under law regardless of whether or not their agreement had been put into writing form beforehand.