Edward Minturn brought a case against James B. Larue, Carlisle P. Patterson, and John R. Fouratt to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1859. The dispute was over an agreement between Minturn and his three defendants concerning a tract of land located in Arkansas that had been granted by Congress to certain Cherokee Indians who were then living there as citizens of the United States. The agreement stated that if any part of this land should be sold or otherwise disposed of by said Cherokees, it would become vested with Edward Minturn for his own use and benefit; however, when some parts were sold off without notice to him he sued for damages from those involved in disposing them without giving him due notice as per their contract terms. After hearing both sides’ arguments on appeal from lower court decisions favoring Larue et al., the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Minturn stating that since they had agreed upon specific conditions regarding notification prior to sale or disposal which were not met by either party at fault here - namely Larue et al.- they must pay damages accordingly according to law

In the case of Edward Minturn v. James B. Larue, Carlisle P. Patterson, and John R. Fouratt, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had already received payment from another source for the same goods or services that were being contracted for in this particular instance. The majority opinion held that such contracts are not enforceable because they would create an unjust enrichment on behalf of one party at the expense of another; however, Justice Grier dissented with this ruling and argued that it is possible to have multiple valid contracts concerning the same subject matter if each contract has its own distinct terms and conditions which do not conflict with each other in any way. He further stated that while it may be true that enforcing both contracts simultaneously would result in double recovery by one party over another, there should still be no legal impediment preventing them from doing so as long as all contractual obligations are fulfilled by both parties involved without any fraud or misrepresentation taking place along the way.