In Ricard v. Williams and Others, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of defendants by the Circuit Court for Louisiana. The plaintiff, Joseph Ricard, had brought suit against several individuals who had been appointed as administrators to his late father's estate. He alleged that they had failed to properly account for certain assets belonging to his father's estate and sought damages accordingly. The Supreme Court held that although it was true that some irregularities may have occurred with regards to accounting for assets belonging to the deceased’s estate, there was no evidence presented which showed any intentional fraud or misconduct on behalf of those administering said estate; thus affirming the decision made by lower court in favor of defendants.

In Ricard v. Williams and Others, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have dismissed the case without hearing it on its merits. He asserted that although there was no express contract between the parties, an implied contract could be inferred from their actions and circumstances. He noted that both parties had acted as if they were bound by some agreement; for example, Ricard had paid money to Williams in exchange for his services as a factor or agent of Ricard's business interests in France. Furthermore, Marshall pointed out that even though there was no written document outlining their arrangement, this did not necessarily mean one did not exist; rather than dismissing the case outright due to lack of evidence of an express contract between them, he suggested further inquiry into whether such an implied agreement existed based on all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding their relationship.