In the case of Joshua Kennedy's Executors et al. v. Lessee of Jonathan Hunt, John Hagan et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee had an obligation to pay rent for land that he leased from a deceased man’s estate when it was later discovered that the original lease agreement did not include all of the property in question. The court determined that since there were no fraud or misrepresentation on either side, and both parties believed they had entered into a valid contract at the time, then even though it turned out that some additional land should have been included in their agreement, this did not change their obligations under its terms. Therefore, despite any errors made by either party during negotiations or execution of their contract, they must still abide by its provisions as written and agreed upon originally.

In the dissenting opinion of Joshua Kennedy's Executors et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Lessee of Jonathan Hunt, John Hagan et al., Defendants in Error, Justice Wayne argued that the court should have found for the defendants and dismissed the case. He believed that a contract between two parties was binding on both sides and could not be broken by one party without consequence or penalty to them. Furthermore, he argued that if a breach occurred then it would be up to an arbitrator or jury to determine what damages were due as compensation for such breach rather than having courts decide this matter themselves. In conclusion, Justice Wayne felt strongly that there was no legal basis for granting relief from contractual obligations unless provided by statute and thus urged his colleagues to reverse their decision and dismiss this case with prejudice against plaintiffs' claims.