In the Supreme Court case of Samuel Marsh, William E. Lee, and Edward C. Delavan v. Edward Brooks and Virginia C., his wife (formerly Virginia C. Reddick), Charles P. Billou and Frances E., his wife (formerly Frances E. Reddick), Walter J Redddick and Dabney C Redddick by Eliza M Redddick, their guardian, heirs at law of Thomas F Reddick deceased; the plaintiffs in error argued that they were entitled to a tract of land located in Alabama which had been owned by Thomas F Reddicl who died intestate without issue or widow in 1845 leaving behind two sisters as heirs-at-law: Virginia C Billou (néeReddicl)and Frances E Delavan(néeReddicl). The defendants argued that under the laws of descent applicable to Alabama at the time they were entitled to inherit said land from their father's estate due to him dying intestate without issue or widow while residing there when he passed away . After considering both sides' arguments ,the court ultimately ruled against the plaintiffs finding for the defendants on grounds that since Thomas F Reddicl was domiciled within Alabama when he died it was subject to its laws governing inheritance which gave preference over any other state's laws regarding succession rights .

In the case of Samuel Marsh, William E. Lee, and Edward C. Delavan v. Edward Brooks and Virginia C., Charles P Billou and Frances E., Walter J Reddick and Dabney C Reddick by Eliza M Reddick, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written even if it is not beneficial to one party or both parties involved in the agreement. The dissent argued that since there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on either side when entering into this contract then it should be upheld regardless of any potential harm to either party due to its terms. Furthermore, they argued that allowing for changes after an agreement has been made would create instability in contracts which could lead to further complications down the line with other agreements being entered into without proper consideration given beforehand due to fear of future alterations by courts or legislatures.