In Jeremiah Van Rensselaer v. John Watts' Executors, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of conveyance executed by an ancestor of the appellant in 1766 constituted a valid and binding contract between two parties. The court found that although there were some ambiguities in the language used, it was clear from both parties’ intent that they had entered into a legally binding agreement at the time of execution. Furthermore, since no evidence existed to suggest any fraud or mistake on either party's part when entering into this agreement, it should be enforced as written according to its terms and conditions. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of appellant Jeremiah Van Rensselaer and held that he was entitled to receive all rights granted under said deed as per their original intention.

In the case of Jeremiah Van Rensselaer v. John Watts' Executors, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced after one party had died and their executor took over. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they did not meet certain legal requirements for enforcement. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on the grounds that it would lead to an unjust result in cases where both parties had acted in good faith and with reasonable expectations of performance by each other. He argued that if a contract is made under circumstances which imply mutual confidence, then it should be binding even though one party has passed away before its completion; otherwise innocent persons may suffer great losses due to no fault of their own.