In the case of William S. Nicholls, and Others vs Thomas Hodges, Executor of Thomas C. Hodges Deceased, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced even though it had not been signed by both parties. The appellants argued that they had an agreement with the deceased which obligated them to receive certain sums from his estate in exchange for their services rendered during his lifetime; however, this agreement was never formally executed or signed by either party before he passed away. The executor of the deceased's estate argued that since there was no formal written contract between them, then any verbal agreements made were invalid and unenforceable under law. After considering all arguments presented by both sides in court, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of enforcing these verbal contracts as valid legal obligations on behalf of both parties involved due to evidence provided showing clear intent from each side to enter into such an arrangement prior to death occurring.

In the dissenting opinion of William S. Nicholls, and Others, Appellants v. Thomas Hodges, Executor of Thomas C. Hodges, Deceased case, Chief Justice Marshall argued that the court should not have reversed the decision made by the Circuit Court as it was based on a valid interpretation of state law. He believed that since there was no clear evidence to suggest otherwise in this particular case then it would be wrong for them to interfere with what had already been decided at a lower level court. Furthermore he suggested that if they were to overturn such decisions without any sound basis then this could lead to further confusion and uncertainty within legal proceedings across all states in America which would ultimately undermine justice itself.