In the case of Gracie and Others v. Palmer and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state statute that allowed for the sale of public lands in order to pay off debts was constitutional. The plaintiffs argued that it violated their rights under Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution which states that no state shall pass any law impairing contracts. The defendants countered by arguing that this particular statute did not violate any contract because it only applied to future sales and therefore could not be considered as impairing existing contracts between parties. After considering both arguments, the court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants stating that while they sympathized with those affected by this legislation, they found no evidence indicating an impairment or violation of existing contracts due to its application solely on future sales.

In the case of Gracie and Others v. Palmer and Others, the dissenting opinion was that a state statute which allowed for an executor to be appointed by will without being approved by court should not be overturned. The majority had ruled that such statutes were unconstitutional as they violated due process rights under Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution. However, in dissent it was argued that this ruling would cause unnecessary disruption to existing laws and customs regarding wills in states where such statutes existed prior to adoption of the Constitution; furthermore, there is no evidence or precedent suggesting any violation of due process rights when these statutes are applied properly. Therefore, it was concluded that overturning these state laws would be inappropriate given their long-standing use within certain jurisdictions before adoption of the federal constitution.