In the case of William Parsons vs. James Armor and T. W. Oakey, syndics of the creditors of James Armor, Parsons was suing for a debt that he claimed to be owed by Armor from an agreement made between them in 1825. The Supreme Court found in favor of the defendants on grounds that there was no evidence presented to prove that any money had been paid or received as part of this agreement and thus it could not be enforced against either party under Virginia law at the time. This decision established precedent for future cases involving contracts with insufficient proof regarding payment or receipt being considered unenforceable due to lack of evidence proving their existence beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case of William Parsons vs. James Armor and T. W. Oakey, the dissenting opinion was that a judgment in favor of Armor and Oakey should be reversed due to an error in the proceedings below. The majority had held that because Parsons failed to plead his right to redeem within one year from when he received notice of foreclosure, he could not now do so as it would be too late for him to exercise this right under Virginia law at the time. However, Justice Story argued that since there were no facts alleged or proved which showed any knowledge on behalf of Parsons regarding his right to redeem before expiration of one year period, then it was improper for him not have been allowed redemption rights after such a long lapse in time without being informed about them beforehand by either party involved in litigation or court itself. He further stated that if parties are aware only after considerable delay has passed then they should still be able to avail themselves with their legal rights even though statute may have expired during such interval; otherwise justice will suffer greatly due its denial through technicalities rather than merits alone deciding outcome