William S. Nichols was the plaintiff in error in a Supreme Court case against Samuel J. Fearson and others. The dispute arose from an agreement between Nichols and Fearson to purchase land together, with each party contributing half of the money for the purchase price. After they had paid off part of their debt, Fearson refused to pay his share of any further payments on the property, claiming that he had already contributed more than his fair share according to their original agreement. In response, Nichols sued him for breach of contract but lost at trial court level due to lack of evidence proving that there was an enforceable contract between them in place when they made their initial payment on the property. On appeal before the Supreme Court however, it was ruled that although no written document existed as proof of a binding agreement between them at this stage, sufficient verbal testimony provided by witnesses indicated that such an arrangement did exist and thus could be enforced by law; therefore reversing judgment from lower courts and awarding damages accordingly to Nichols for breach of contract against Fearson et al..

In the case of William S. Nichols v. Samuel J. Fearson et al., Justice McLean dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not subject to judicial interpretation or alteration based on what one party believes is fair or equitable in hindsight. He argued that if courts were allowed to modify contracts after they had been agreed upon by both parties, it would create an uncertain business environment where people could no longer rely on their agreements being honored and respected by the court system. Furthermore, he noted that any changes made to a contract must be done with mutual consent of all involved parties; otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment for one side at the expense of another without due process or consideration for fairness and equity under law.