In the case of John A. Gibson and Kinchen A. Martin v Beverly Chew, the plaintiffs in error argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of their property by a deed executed by defendant in error, Beverly Chew. The deed was for land located on the Tombigbee River which belonged to Gibson and Martin but was sold without their knowledge or consent to Chew who then took possession of it. The Supreme Court ruled that although there were some irregularities with respect to how the sale came about, these did not invalidate it as long as all parties involved acted in good faith and no fraud occurred. Furthermore, since both sides had accepted payment for the transaction prior to any legal proceedings being initiated, this indicated an agreement between them which could not be undone at a later date even if one party felt aggrieved afterwards due to lack of knowledge or understanding at time of sale.

In the case of John A. Gibson and Kinchen A. Martin v Beverly Chew, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it was not in writing as long as there is evidence to prove its existence. The majority opinion held that since the contract in question had not been written down, it could not be enforced by law; however, Justice McLean disagreed with this ruling and argued that oral contracts are still valid under certain circumstances such as when both parties have agreed to them or when one party has already performed their part of the agreement. He also noted that any other decision would lead to injustice for those who relied on verbal agreements without having them put into writing beforehand. Ultimately, he concluded his dissent by stating that although an oral contract may lack some formality compared to a written one, it can still be legally binding so long as there is sufficient proof of its existence and validity.