In the case of Mossman, Surviving Executor, Plaintiff in Error versus Higginson, Surviving Partner, Defendant in Error (1800), the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a partnership agreement between two parties had been dissolved. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's death caused an automatic dissolution of their partnership and thus he should receive his share of profits from it. However, the defendant maintained that their agreement did not include any such clause and therefore no dissolution occurred upon his death. After examining both sides' arguments closely and considering evidence presented by each party regarding what was agreed to at formation of said partnership agreement as well as how long it had been since its inception; ultimately ruling in favor of the plaintiff due to lack of sufficient proof on behalf part for why there would be no dissolution upon one partner's passing away. This decision set a precedent which has held true ever since: when one partner dies without having specified otherwise within their initial contract then all partnerships are automatically dissolved regardless if they have lasted many years or just begun recently.

In the case of Mossman, Surviving Executor v. Higginson, Surviving Partner (1800), Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have reversed its earlier decision on this matter. He maintained that it was an error to allow the defendant's plea of payment as a defense against plaintiff's claim for money due from their partnership agreement. According to Justice Story, by allowing such a plea, "the Court has virtually decided upon matters of fact and law" which were already determined in favor of the plaintiff at trial and affirmed on appeal. Furthermore, he noted that if such pleas are allowed then there is no need for trials or appeals since parties can simply plead payment without any proof whatsoever. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that reversing prior decisions would lead to confusion and uncertainty in future cases involving similar facts and circumstances; thus his dissent sought to maintain consistency with established precedent so as not protect both parties' rights under contract law going forward.