In the case of Peter Hogg and Cornelius H. Delamater v. John B. Emerson, the plaintiffs in error argued that they had a valid contract with Emerson for the sale of certain real estate located in New York City, but that he failed to fulfill his obligations under it by not paying them their agreed-upon purchase price within an allotted time frame as specified in the agreement. The Supreme Court found that there was indeed a valid contract between all parties involved and thus ruled against Emerson on this matter, ordering him to pay damages to both plaintiffs according to what was stipulated in their original agreement. Furthermore, it held that any subsequent agreements made after this initial one were invalid due to being entered into without consideration or legal authority from either party's part; therefore no additional payment could be required from either plaintiff beyond what had already been agreed upon initially between them and Emerson at the time of signing said contract.

In the case of Peter Hogg and Cornelius H. Delamater v. John B. Emerson, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written regardless of any prior agreement or understanding between them if it is not in violation of public policy or law. The dissent further argued that when a party has agreed to an arrangement with another, they are bound by their promise even if there was no consideration given for it and that this principle applies to all contracts unless otherwise specified by statute or other legal authority. Furthermore, the dissent maintained that courts should not interfere in contractual arrangements made between individuals unless there is clear evidence of fraud, duress, mistake or illegality on either side which would render such agreements voidable at law. In conclusion, while recognizing the importance of upholding contracts according to their terms and conditions without interference from outside sources whenever possible; nonetheless caution must still be taken so as not to allow one party’s rights over another’s when those rights have been established through valid means under applicable laws governing such matters