Mason and Another brought a case against Matilda and Others to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully dispossessed of their property, which was located in Kentucky. They claimed that the defendants had unlawfully entered onto their land without permission or legal authority. The Supreme Court found in favor of Mason and Another, ruling that the defendants did not have any right to enter onto the plaintiffs’ property without consent from them first. Furthermore, it held that even if there were some kind of agreement between parties for use of said land, such an agreement would be invalid due to lack of consideration on both sides. As a result, Mason and Another were awarded damages for being wrongfully dispossessed from their property by Matilda and Others.

In the case of Mason and Another v. Matilda and Others, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written. The majority had ruled that one party could not enforce an agreement if they were unable to fulfill their part of it due to circumstances beyond their control. However, the dissent maintained that this would create uncertainty in contracts because each party might have different interpretations about what constituted “circumstances beyond their control” or when those circumstances occurred. Furthermore, allowing such exceptions would undermine public confidence in contracts by creating doubt over whether agreements will actually be honored or not. Therefore, according to the dissenters, courts should only consider facts known at the time of contracting when deciding whether an agreement is valid or not; any subsequent events which prevent either side from fulfilling its obligations are irrelevant for legal purposes and do not invalidate a contract already made in good faith by both parties.