John Overton, Robert C. Brinkley, Robertson Topp and James Jenkins (Plaintiffs in Error) brought a case against Elijah Cheek and George W. Cheek (Defendants). The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants had unlawfully sold land owned by them without their consent or authority to do so. The Supreme Court of Tennessee found for the Defendants on the grounds that they were unaware of any fraud or misrepresentation when they purchased the land from an individual who was not authorized to sell it. However, upon appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Justice Grier reversed this decision and held that even if there was no knowledge of fraud at time of purchase, purchasers must take reasonable steps to ensure title is valid before purchasing property from another party as otherwise it would be unjust enrichment for them at expense of rightful owners. Therefore, he ruled in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered defendants pay damages equal value received from sale plus interest accrued since date transaction occurred.

In the case of John Overton, Robert C. Brinkley, Robertson Topp and James Jenkins v Elijah Cheek and George W. Cheek, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The dissenters believed that in this particular case, the plaintiffs had failed to provide any proof or testimony which would have allowed them to prove their claim for damages due to breach of contract by either party. Furthermore, they argued that it was not necessary for both parties involved in a contract dispute to appear before court if one party has already provided sufficient evidence of breach on behalf of another party; therefore no further action needed be taken against either side in this instance since all relevant information had been presented prior to trial. In conclusion, the dissenters felt strongly that contracts should always be honored according to their terms unless clear evidence can demonstrate why an exception should apply - something which did not occur here given lack of proof from plaintiffs' side during proceedings.