Grymes v. Sanders et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a deed of trust was valid. The case involved a dispute between two parties, William Grymes and the Sanders et al. The Sanders et al. had purchased a tract of land from Grymes, and in order to secure the purchase, they had executed a deed of trust. The deed of trust provided that if the Sanders et al. failed to pay the purchase price, the land would be sold and the proceeds would be used to pay the debt. Grymes argued that the deed of trust was invalid because it was not properly executed. He argued that the deed of trust was not properly executed because it was not signed by the Sanders et al. and was not witnessed by two witnesses. The Supreme Court disagreed with Grymes and held that the deed of trust was valid. The Court reasoned that the deed of trust was valid because it was signed by the Sanders et al. and was witnessed by one witness. The Court also held that the deed of trust was valid because it was executed in accordance with the laws of the state in which it was executed. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the deed of trust was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the deed of trust was valid because it was signed by the Sanders et al. and was witnessed by one witness. The Court also held that the deed of trust was valid because it was executed in accordance with the laws of the state in which it was executed.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Grymes v. Sanders et al., arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under Virginia law, a deed of trust could not pass title to land unless it was accompanied by an actual delivery or transfer of possession from one party to another. In this case, there had been no such delivery or transfer; instead, the deed had simply been recorded with the county clerk without any further action taken by either party. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that under Virginia law, no valid conveyance had occurred and thus the lower court's ruling should have been upheld rather than overturned as it was by the majority opinion.