John Doe, ex dem. Curtis Mann and Dolphus Hannah brought a case against William Wilson to the US Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully dispossessed of their property by Wilson in violation of an act passed by Congress in 1820 which granted them certain rights over it. The court found that the act was unconstitutional as it violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation, and thus dismissed the case. This decision established a precedent whereby any federal law or state statute which sought to take away private property without providing fair market value would be deemed invalid under constitutional law.

In the case of John Doe, Ex Dem. Curtis Mann and Dolphus Hannah v. William Wilson, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided simply because one party was unable to fulfill their end of the agreement due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control. The dissent further argued that if such contracts were easily voided in this manner it would lead to an increase in litigation as well as uncertainty for both parties involved when entering into agreements with each other. Furthermore, they felt that there should be some sort of remedy available for those who are wrongfully deprived of what is rightfully theirs under a valid contract even though performance may have been impossible due to no fault on either side's part. Ultimately, they concluded by stating that equity demands justice and fairness in all cases regardless of any extenuating factors which may arise during contractual negotiations or execution thereof.