Edward C. Richards, Isaac Bassett, and Robert W. Aborn were the complainants and appellants in a Supreme Court case against Sylvanus Holmes, A. H. Harper, George A Dwight et al., which concerned an act of Congress passed in 1845 that authorized the sale of public lands to aid in constructing railroads from Lake Michigan to Rock Island on the Mississippi River. The plaintiffs claimed they had purchased land under this act but their titles were not valid because it was later discovered that some of these lands had already been granted by previous acts or reserved for other purposes before being sold again under this new law; thus making them invalid sales according to federal law at the time. The defendants argued that since they held legal title to these properties when they bought them from government agents there should be no issue with their ownership rights even though those titles may have been obtained through illegal means prior to purchase date; however after much deliberation it was decided by majority opinion that all such purchases made under this particular act would be nullified due to its illegality as pertains specifically stated within said legislation itself - thereby rendering any claims based upon such transactions void ab initio (from inception).

In the case of Edward C. Richards, Isaac Bassett, and Robert W. Aborn v Sylvanus Holmes et al., the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written if it is not contrary to public policy or illegal under state law. The majority had held that a contract could be modified by an agreement made after its execution if both parties consented to such modification; however, the dissent argued that this would lead to uncertainty in contractual obligations and undermine confidence in contracts generally. Furthermore, they argued that any modifications should only occur with clear evidence of mutual consent from both parties involved in order for them to be validly enforceable. In conclusion, while recognizing the need for flexibility when interpreting contracts due to changing circumstances over time, they maintained their stance on upholding original agreements unless there is clear proof of subsequent modifications agreed upon by all relevant parties involved