In the case of William C. Gardner vs. John A. Collins et al., a dispute arose between two parties over an agreement to purchase land in Kentucky from one party, and then resell it for profit to another party at a higher price. The original purchaser argued that he was entitled to keep any profits made on the sale, while the other party claimed they were due half of all proceeds as per their contract with him. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the original purchaser, finding that there was no evidence presented by either side indicating that such an arrangement had been agreed upon prior to entering into their contract; thus, only he could claim ownership over any profits generated through his subsequent sale of said property.

In the case of William C. Gardner vs. John A. Collins et al., Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion, arguing that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent the defendants from selling their property in order to pay off debts owed by them and their father's estate. He argued that it was within the power of Congress to pass laws regulating such matters, but since no law had been passed on this particular issue, he believed it would be wrong for the Court to interfere with private contracts between individuals or corporations without any legal authority from Congress or state legislatures. Furthermore, he noted that if an injunction were issued in this case then similar injunctions could be issued against other debtors who may not even owe money directly related to those involved in this dispute; thus creating a dangerous precedent which could lead to further interference with private contracts and transactions without proper legislative authorization.