In the case of Edward P. Fourniquet and Harriet Jane Fourniquet, his wife v. John Perkins, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a deed executed by an agent on behalf of another party was valid without being signed or sealed by that other party. The appellants argued that they had purchased land from one William Burch in 1845 but did not receive a deed for it until 1847 when their agent received it from Burch's executor, John Perkins. However, this deed had not been signed or sealed by either Burch or his executor before its delivery to the appellants' agent and therefore could be considered invalid according to Louisiana law at the time which required such signatures as proof of authenticity for deeds transferring property rights between parties. The court ultimately ruled against the appellants stating that while there may have been evidence indicating an agreement between them and Burch prior to his death regarding ownership of said land, no legal title could pass without a properly executed document bearing both signatures and seals as required under Louisiana law at the time; thus rendering any claim made by them null and void due to lack thereof.

In the dissenting opinion of Edward P. Fourniquet and Harriet Jane Fourniquet, His Wife v. John Perkins, Chief Justice Taney argued that the court should have considered a prior case in which it was determined that an individual's right to property is not absolute when it comes into conflict with public interests or safety. He further argued that if this principle had been applied in this case then the appellants would have been able to prove their claim for damages due to negligence on behalf of Mr. Perkins as he failed to properly secure his boat from drifting away onto their land and causing damage thereto. In conclusion, Chief Justice Taney believed that since there were no facts presented by either party regarding any potential harm caused by allowing Mr. Perkins' boat remain on the appellants' land then they should be allowed compensation for damages resulting from its presence thereon without having to prove negligence on behalf of Mr. Perkins first before being granted relief under law