In the case of Patrick C. Shannon, Appt., v. Rafall Cavazos, Maria Josefa Cavazos (his wife), and Estafana Gozearcochea de Cortina, the Supreme Court held that a contract between two parties was binding even if it had not been signed by both parties. The plaintiff in this case argued that he had entered into an agreement with the defendants to purchase certain land for $1,000 but they refused to sign any documents or accept payment from him. The court found that since there was evidence of a verbal agreement between both parties and no counter-evidence presented by either party regarding its validity, then it should be considered valid under Texas law at the time. Furthermore, as long as all other conditions were met such as consideration being given on both sides and mutual assent being present in order for a contract to be legally binding; then this particular contract could still stand without requiring signatures from each party involved.

In the case of Patrick C. Shannon v. Rafall Cavazos, Maria Josefa Cavazos, and Estafana Gozearcochea de Cortina, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted relief to Shannon because his claim was barred by laches (unreasonable delay). He noted that although there were some technical errors in the proceedings leading up to this case, they did not justify granting relief since it had been over 20 years since Shannon's original petition for title was filed. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued that even if these technical errors could be overlooked due to their age and complexity of the matter at hand, then other facts such as possession of land or improvements made on it would need to be taken into consideration before any decision is made regarding who has rightful ownership of said property. Finally, he concluded by stating that while courts should always strive for justice when deciding cases like this one; they must also take into account all relevant facts before making a final determination so as not to create an unjust result based solely on technicalities or delays caused by either party involved in litigation.