In the case of Susan Lawrence v. Robert McCalmont, Hugh McCalmont and William Johnson Newell, the plaintiff argued that she was entitled to a portion of her deceased father's estate. The defendants had purchased land from her father before his death and claimed they were not liable for any debts he may have owed at the time of his passing. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants on grounds that their purchase was made in good faith and without knowledge or notice of any outstanding debt obligations held by Lawrence’s father. Furthermore, it was determined that since no fraud or collusion took place between parties involved with purchasing said property, there could be no legal basis for reversing such an agreement due to unpaid debts after its completion.

In the case of Susan Lawrence v. Robert McCalmont, Hugh McCalmont and William Johnson Newell, the dissenting opinion was that a woman’s right to contract should not be denied on account of her gender. The majority had held that because she was married at the time she entered into a contract with defendants, it could not be enforced due to an existing law which prohibited women from entering into contracts while married. The dissent argued that this law violated equal protection under the Constitution as it applied only to women and did not apply equally across genders. Furthermore, they argued that denying a woman’s right to enter into contracts would have far-reaching implications for all aspects of society including commerce and business transactions in general; thus making it necessary for courts to protect such rights regardless of gender or marital status. Finally, they concluded by stating their belief in upholding fundamental principles of justice which required them to recognize a person's ability - male or female -to make valid contractual agreements without interference from any outside source or authority