In the case of Zachary Pulliam, Executor of Amos Albritton v. Alexander Osborne, Administrator of Samuel Woodward, a dispute arose over the ownership and possession of certain slaves in Georgia. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not an agreement between two parties was valid under state law. The court found that although there was no written contract between the parties involved in this dispute, it could be inferred from their actions that they intended to enter into a binding agreement regarding the transfer and ownership of these slaves. Furthermore, since both sides acted upon this understanding for several years without any objection being raised by either party during that time period, it was determined that such an arrangement would be legally enforceable under Georgia law at the time.

In the dissenting opinion of Zachary Pulliam, Executor of Amos Albritton v. Alexander Osborne, Administrator of Samuel Woodward, Justice McLean argued that the court should have found in favor of Pulliam and reversed the decision made by the lower court. He believed that there was sufficient evidence to prove that a contract existed between Albritton and Woodward for an exchange of land titles which had been agreed upon before either party passed away. The majority opinion held that since no written agreement could be produced as proof it did not exist; however McLean disagreed with this reasoning because he felt oral agreements were just as binding under law if they could be proven through other means such as witnesses or circumstantial evidence. He also noted how both parties acted on their understanding even after one's death which further supported his argument for a valid contract existing between them prior to passing away.