In the case of Charlotte Dye Owings and Frances T.D. Owings v James F Hull, the plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to a portion of their father's estate after his death due to an agreement made between them and their father prior to his passing. The defendant, Mr Hull, was appointed as executor of the will by their late father and had refused to honor this agreement when he distributed the assets from the estate among other heirs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs stating that agreements such as these are binding even if not written down or recorded in any way; it is enough for there be evidence proving its existence through witnesses or other means which can be used in court proceedings. This ruling set a precedent for future cases involving verbal contracts being legally enforceable under certain circumstances.

In the case of Charlotte Dye Owings and Frances T.D. Owings v James F Hull, the dissenting opinion was that the court should not have granted a new trial to Hull as it would be an injustice to the plaintiffs who had already been awarded damages by a jury in their favor. The dissent argued that there was no error in law or fact committed by either party during the original trial which could justify granting a new one, and thus allowing Hull's motion for such would be unjustified given all evidence presented at trial indicated he was liable for damages due to his negligence causing injury to both plaintiffs. Furthermore, since this case involved two separate claims against him from different parties with distinct injuries caused by his negligence, they should each receive compensation independently rather than being lumped together into one award as requested by Hull's motion for new trial.