William Remington and Otho M. Linthicum were involved in a dispute over the ownership of land located in Maryland. The case was brought before the Supreme Court to determine who had rightful title to the property. In his argument, Remington claimed that he held legal title to the land due to an agreement with its former owner, while Linthicum argued that he had acquired it through adverse possession after occupying it for more than 20 years without any objection from Remington or anyone else claiming rights on behalf of him. After considering both sides’ arguments, the court ruled in favor of Linthicum because they found that his occupation of the property constituted sufficient proof of ownership under Maryland law at that time. This decision established important precedent regarding how long someone must occupy a piece of land before being considered its rightful owner by virtue of adverse possession.

In the case of William Remington vs. Otho M. Linthicum, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it is not in writing and signed by both parties as long as there is sufficient evidence to prove its existence. The majority opinion held that contracts must be in writing and signed by both parties for them to be enforceable, but Justice Story argued that this requirement should not apply when there are other forms of proof such as testimony from witnesses or circumstantial evidence which can demonstrate an agreement between two people. He believed that enforcing verbal agreements would help protect individuals who may have been taken advantage of due to their lack of knowledge about legal matters or because they were unable to read and write. Furthermore, he argued that requiring all contracts to be written down could lead to fraud since one party might take advantage of another's illiteracy or ignorance in order for them sign away their rights without fully understanding what they are agreeing too.