In the case of Doe, Lessee of Lewis and Wife v. M'Farland and Others, a dispute arose between two parties over the ownership rights to certain lands in Virginia. The plaintiff was John Doe, who had leased land from William Lewis and his wife; however, after their death he claimed that they had sold him the property outright. On the other hand, defendants argued that they were rightful owners due to an earlier deed given by William Lewis before his marriage with Jane (the wife). After much deliberation on both sides’ arguments concerning title deeds as well as legal precedents set forth by prior cases regarding similar disputes involving married couples in Virginia at this time period, it was ultimately decided that John Doe did indeed have full right to possession of these lands since there was no evidence presented which could prove otherwise.

In the case of Doe, Lessee of Lewis and Wife v. M'Farland and Others, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have considered whether or not an agreement between two parties was valid before deciding on its enforceability. He reasoned that if such an agreement had been made by both parties with full knowledge of all relevant facts, then it would be binding upon them regardless of any subsequent changes to state law. Furthermore, Marshall asserted that even if one party had acted fraudulently or negligently when entering into the contract, they could still be held liable for their actions as long as there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. Ultimately, Marshall concluded that since this particular case involved a dispute over land ownership rights rather than contractual obligations between two individuals, it did not fall within the purview of federal courts and should instead be decided at a state level court proceeding.