William D. Nutt, Executor of Alexander Hunter, Deceased brought a case to the Supreme Court against Philip H. Minor. The dispute was over an agreement between Hunter and Minor in which Hunter agreed to pay $2,000 for land owned by Minor with half paid at the time of purchase and the other half due one year later with interest added on it. After paying off part of his debt, Hunter died before he could make any further payments leaving his executor responsible for settling his debts including this one owed to Minor. However, when Nutt attempted to settle this debt he found that there were two deeds issued from different dates making him unsure as to which deed should be honored or if both should be honored since they had conflicting terms regarding payment amounts and deadlines for payment completion. The court ultimately ruled that only one deed was valid because it was signed first while the second deed did not contain all necessary information required by law so it could not be enforced legally even though both parties had signed them separately but around the same time period; therefore Nutt would have been obligated under Virginia law only to fulfill obligations stated in original document regardless of what either party may have verbally agreed upon afterwards without properly documenting those changes into writing according their state's laws governing such matters .

In the dissenting opinion of William D. Nutt, Executor of Alexander Hunter, Deceased v. Philip H. Minor, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff had a right to recover damages from the defendant for his negligence in failing to pay off an outstanding debt owed by a third party which was secured by a deed of trust given by Hunter and held as collateral security on behalf of Minor’s loan. The majority opinion found that there was no cause of action against Minor because he did not have actual knowledge or notice that payment had not been made; however, McLean disagreed with this conclusion and instead argued that it should be presumed under Virginia law at the time that any person who takes possession or control over property belonging to another is charged with constructive notice regarding its condition and status unless they can prove otherwise through evidence presented in court. Furthermore, McLean contended that since Minor failed to take reasonable steps necessary to protect himself from potential losses associated with taking such property into his possession without proper inquiry or investigation beforehand then he could be held liable for any resulting damages incurred due to his negligence regardless if he lacked actual knowledge about them prior