In the case of Richard C. L. Moncure and Walter P. Conway, Executors of Mary James v Ann R Dermott, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a deed from Mary James to her daughter-in-law, Ann R Dermott, was valid or not. The executors argued that it had been made under duress and should be declared void as a result; however, the court found in favor of Mrs Dermott on two grounds: firstly because there was no evidence that any coercion had taken place when making the deed; secondly because even if such coercion did exist then it would have been too late for them to challenge its validity after so long a period since its execution. Ultimately this decision set an important precedent in establishing that deeds are binding unless they can be proven invalid through clear evidence at their time of creation rather than years later when challenged by third parties with vested interests in doing so.

In the case of Richard C. L. Moncure and Walter P. Conway, Executors of Mary James v Ann R Dermott, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed given by Mary James in 1827 was valid or not. The majority opinion found that it was invalid because it had been made without consideration and therefore did not meet the requirements for a valid contract under Virginia law at that time. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there had been sufficient consideration provided; secondly, he contended that even if there hadn't been any consideration present when the deed was signed then its validity should be judged according to subsequent events which showed an intention to provide some form of compensation for it later on down the line - something which would have satisfied Virginia's legal requirements at that time as well as modern ones too.