In the case of Duncan Linton, Charlotte Linton and her husband Francis Surgette, Stephen Duncan guardian of Mary Linton and John Linton minors v. Frederick Stanton, the plaintiffs in error argued that they had a right to certain lands under an agreement with Stanton's predecessor. The Supreme Court held that although there was no written contract between them and the defendant or his predecessor, their possession for more than twenty years gave them title to the land by adverse possession. The court further ruled that since this was a matter concerning real estate rights which could not be taken away without due process of law as guaranteed by state constitutions, it should have been brought before a jury instead of being decided solely on legal arguments presented in court.

In the case of Duncan Linton, Charlotte Linton and her husband Francis Surgette, Stephen Duncan guardian of Mary Linton and John Linton minors v. Frederick Stanton, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it is not in writing. The majority opinion held that because there was no written agreement between the parties involved in this dispute over land ownership rights, they could not enforce any verbal promises made by one party to another. However, Justice McLean argued that such an oral agreement should still be binding as long as both parties had agreed upon its terms at some point during their negotiations. He further stated that since all other evidence pointed towards a valid contract being formed between them prior to any litigation taking place then it would be unjust for either party to go back on their word without consequence or recompense from the other side.