In the case of Lessee of Robert W. Smith and Carey W. Butt v William McCann, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee had rights to use timber on land they leased from another party for mining purposes. The plaintiff argued that their lease agreement gave them exclusive rights to cut down trees in order to mine coal on the property, while the defendant argued that he owned all timber growing on his land regardless of any leases or agreements made with other parties. Ultimately, it was decided by a majority opinion that although there were no express terms granting such right in the lease agreement between plaintiff and defendant, an implied license existed which allowed for cutting down trees as long as it did not interfere with other uses or interests related to ownership of said property. This decision established precedent regarding how courts should interpret ambiguous language within contracts when determining if certain activities are permissible under those agreements

In the case of Lessee of Robert W. Smith and Carey W. Butt v William McCann, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The majority had held that an oral agreement made by one party was sufficient to modify a prior written contract, even though it contradicted certain terms in the original document. The dissent disagreed with this interpretation because they believed that any modification must be evidenced in writing or else it would not be legally binding on either party involved in the dispute. Furthermore, they argued that if such modifications were allowed without being documented then contracts could easily become unreliable and subject to manipulation by one side over another due to lack of proof or evidence for what was actually agreed upon between them at any given time.