In the case of Piles and Others v. Bouldin and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made under duress. The plaintiffs argued that they were forced into signing an agreement with defendants due to threats of violence, which rendered their signatures invalid. The defendants countered that since there was no physical harm inflicted upon them, any threat did not constitute duress and thus the contract should stand as valid. Ultimately, the court sided with the plaintiffs in ruling that even though no physical force had been used against them, psychological coercion can still render a contract voidable on grounds of duress if it is proven to have influenced one's decision-making process when entering into an agreement. This landmark ruling established precedent for future cases involving contracts made under similar circumstances where psychological pressure may have played a role in influencing consent from both parties involved in making said agreements.

In Piles and Others v. Bouldin and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a deed of trust executed by two individuals could be enforced against their heirs after they had died. The majority opinion held that it could not, as the deed did not explicitly state that it would bind future generations. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on the grounds that such an interpretation of deeds of trust was too restrictive and should be interpreted more liberally in order to protect creditors' rights. He argued that if a creditor has given value for a debt secured by real estate with no time limit specified for payment, then any reasonable construction must imply an intention to secure repayment even beyond death or other events which might otherwise terminate contractual obligations between living parties. Therefore he concluded that such debts should remain binding upon successors in title unless there is clear evidence indicating otherwise.