John Murphy and John Darrington, administrators of William Matheson who had passed away, were the plaintiffs in error in a Supreme Court case against Angus Stewart, administrator of Alexander Grant. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that Matheson owed to Grant prior to his death. The court found that there was no legal obligation for the administrators of Matheson’s estate to pay off this debt as it did not fall under any exceptions listed by statute or common law at the time. Therefore, they could not be held liable for repayment on behalf of their deceased ward. This ruling established precedent regarding debts owed by individuals after their passing and set clear guidelines about which creditors can seek payment from estates following a person's death.

In the case of John Murphy and John Darrington, Administrators of William Matheson, Deceased v. Angus Stewart, Administrator of Alexander Grant, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it was not in writing. The majority opinion held that since there was no written agreement between Matheson and Grant regarding their business dealings with each other prior to Grant's death, then any claims for payment could not be enforced against his estate after his passing. However, the dissent argued that an oral agreement is just as valid as a written one when it comes to contracts; thus they believed that Matheson had every right to seek compensation from Grant's estate for goods he supplied on credit during their business relationship. They further noted how this decision would have far-reaching implications by setting a precedent which would make all future oral agreements unenforceable unless they were put into writing beforehand - something which may prove difficult or impossible in many cases due to lack of time or resources available at the time such deals are made.