In Samuel Lee and Barbara Lee v. Elizabeth Lee, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an inheritance dispute between siblings. The plaintiffs in error were Samuel and Barbara, who argued that they had inherited their father's estate after his death in 1826. However, Elizabeth claimed to have been given her father's entire estate by him before he died, which she then sold off for cash shortly afterwards. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elizabeth on the grounds that there was no evidence to support Samuel and Barbara’s claim that their father intended them to inherit his property upon his death; instead it appeared as though he had already made arrangements for Elizabeth prior to passing away. Furthermore, since all parties involved were citizens of Virginia at the time this case was brought forth (which did not recognize common law marriage), any claims from either party regarding a marital relationship with their deceased parent would be irrelevant under state law.

In the case of Samuel Lee and Barbara Lee v. Elizabeth Lee, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided simply because one party was under duress when they entered into it. The dissent stated that while it is true that contracts made under duress are voidable, in this particular case there was no evidence to suggest any such coercion had taken place. Furthermore, even if some form of coercion did exist at the time of signing, both parties were still bound by their agreement until either party sought legal relief from a court or other tribunal with jurisdiction over them. As such, the dissent concluded that since neither side had requested for an annulment or rescission of their contract prior to this dispute being brought before the Supreme Court, then both sides must abide by its terms as written and agreed upon originally.