Cornelius Kanouse brought a case against John M. Martin to the Supreme Court of Illinois in 1853. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that Kanouse claimed he was owed by Martin, and which had been secured by a mortgage on some property owned by Martin. The lower court found in favor of Kanouse, but this decision was reversed when it reached the Supreme Court. In their ruling, the justices held that since there were no witnesses present at the time of signing for either party, they could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that any agreement between them existed or had been breached; therefore, they dismissed Kanouse's claim as invalid and upheld Martin's appeal. This established precedent for future cases where parties are unable to provide evidence regarding verbal agreements made without witnesses being present at the time of signing contracts or other documents related to such agreements.

In the case of Cornelius Kanouse v. John M. Martin, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have reversed the decision of the lower court and instead should have allowed it to stand as is. He argued that there was no evidence presented by either party to show any fraud or mistake on behalf of either party, so therefore there was no reason for reversal. Furthermore, he noted that if this were an action brought against a third person who had nothing to do with the original contract between Kanouse and Martin then perhaps reversal would be appropriate but since both parties were involved in making said contract then reversing it would be unjustified. Lastly, Justice Grier stated that even though some parts of their agreement may appear unfair or inequitable they are still binding under law unless proven otherwise through proper legal proceedings such as those conducted by courts below them; thus ruling out any possibility for reversal from their end without sufficient proof being provided first.