In Russell v. Ely et al., the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract between two parties is binding and enforceable even if it was not in writing, as long as there is sufficient evidence to prove its existence. The case involved a dispute over an oral agreement between two individuals for the sale of land in New York State. The defendant argued that since no written contract had been made, he should not be bound by any terms agreed upon orally. However, the court found that there was sufficient proof from witnesses and other evidence to establish an oral agreement between both parties which could be enforced under law. This decision established precedent for future cases involving verbal contracts and their enforcement in courts of law across America.

In the case of Russell vs. Ely et al., Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to pass legislation concerning slavery, and that any such laws were unconstitutional. He further stated that the Fugitive Slave Act was an attempt by Congress to exercise power over matters reserved for individual states, and thus violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that since slaves are not citizens they cannot be protected under federal law; therefore it is up to each state individually whether or not they choose to recognize slave property rights as valid within their borders. Finally, Taney asserted that even if Congress did have some authority over slavery issues, this particular act went beyond what was necessary and proper in order for them to carry out their duties as outlined in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.