This case involved a dispute between the executor of David Peter's estate, George Peter, and the heirs of David Peter. The Banks of Columbia and United States were also appellants in this case. At issue was whether or not certain bonds issued by the Bank of Columbia to David Peter should be paid out from his estate as part payment for land he had purchased prior to his death. The Supreme Court ultimately held that these bonds could not be used as payment for the land because they had been issued after it was already sold and thus did not constitute valid consideration under contract law at that time. Furthermore, since there was no evidence that any other form of consideration had been given in exchange for said property, it would remain with its original owners - namely James B Beverly and William Ramsay - who were both heirs to David Peters' estate.

In the dissenting opinion of George Peter, Executor of David Peter Deceased, The Bank of Columbia and The Bank of the United States v. James B. Beverly and Wife, William Ramsay and Wife, and Others; Heirs of David Peter Deceased (1836), Justice Thompson argued that a court should not be able to set aside an agreement between two parties if it was made in good faith with no fraud or mistake involved. He believed that such agreements were binding on both sides unless there was evidence to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, he stated that courts should not interfere with contracts which had been entered into by competent parties who had acted freely without any duress or coercion from either side. In his view, these agreements could only be overturned if they violated public policy or some other legal principle which would render them invalid under the law. Therefore he concluded that this particular contract should remain valid as it did not violate any laws nor did it involve any fraudulent activity on either party's part