In the case of William Oliver and Micajah T. Williams and Others v. Robert Piat, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The appellants argued that they had entered into a valid contract with Piat for the purchase of certain lands, but that this agreement violated a state statute which prohibited such contracts from being made without first obtaining permission from the legislature. The court held that while it was true that such contracts were illegal under state law, they were still enforceable as long as both parties agreed to them in good faith and did not intend to violate any laws or regulations at the time of entering into said agreement. Furthermore, since there was no evidence presented by either party indicating bad faith or intent on their part to break any laws or regulations when making their contract, then it should stand as legally binding upon both parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice Catron argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of Tennessee law. He believed that under Tennessee law, Robert Piat had an absolute right to redeem his property from William Oliver and Micajah T. Williams after it had been sold for delinquent taxes. The majority held that redemption could only be made if done within one year from when the deed was issued; however, Justice Catron asserted that there were no such restrictions in place according to state statute and thus Piat should have been allowed to redeem at any time before possession or sale by another party occurred. Furthermore, he noted how allowing redemption beyond one year would not cause any harm as long as all parties involved received their due compensation for their interests in the land dispute.