In Lee v. Munroe & Thornton, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract between two parties was binding even if it had not been signed by both parties. The case involved an agreement between Thomas Lee and John Munroe & William Thornton for the sale of land in Virginia. Although there was no written contract, evidence showed that both sides had agreed to certain terms orally and acted on them as though they were bound by a valid contract. The court found that this constituted sufficient consideration to make the agreement enforceable under state law, despite its lack of signature from either party. This decision established precedent for future cases involving oral contracts without signatures or other formalities required at common law; such agreements can still be enforced today provided they meet all other requirements necessary for a legally-binding contract.

In Lee v. Munroe & Thornton, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the case without hearing it on its merits. He noted that although there was no dispute as to whether or not an agreement had been made between the parties, there were questions of fact and law regarding how much money each party owed under their contract. The majority held that since both parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration, they could not bring suit until after arbitration had taken place; however, Chief Justice Marshall disagreed with this interpretation of the law and argued that if one party refused to arbitrate then a court could hear the case before arbitration took place. Furthermore, he stated that even if both parties agreed to arbitrate first but failed to do so within a reasonable time frame then either side would be able to sue for breach of contract without waiting any longer for arbitration proceedings. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall believed it was wrong for the Court dismiss this case without considering all relevant facts and legal arguments presented by both sides because doing so denied them justice according