In the case of Ann Shanks, Margaretta Shanks, Sarah P. Shanks, Grace F. Shanks and Eliza Shanks (plaintiffs below) vs Abraham Dupont and Jane his wife, Daniel Pepper and Ann Pepper (defendants in error), the plaintiffs sought to recover a tract of land from the defendants on which they had resided for many years prior to 1814 when it was sold by their father's executor without their knowledge or consent. The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence presented that any fraud or collusion occurred between the parties involved in selling the property at issue nor any proof that either party knew about this lack of consent from those affected by its sale; therefore, no action could be taken against them as all parties acted with good faith throughout this transaction. As such, judgment was entered for defendants below with costs taxed against appellants above.

In the case of Ann Shanks, Margaretta Shanks, Sarah P. Shanks, Grace F. Shanks and Eliza Shanks (the appellants) versus Abraham Dupont and Jane his wife, Daniel Pepper and Ann Pepper (the defendants), the dissenting opinion was that a court should not be able to grant an injunction against a party who has already been found liable in another court for damages resulting from their actions. The dissent argued that it would be unjust for one court to enjoin or prevent a defendant from doing something which had already been determined by another court as being wrongfully done; this would amount to double jeopardy since they have already suffered punishment through the payment of damages. Furthermore, if such injunctions were allowed then there could potentially be multiple courts issuing conflicting orders on how parties should act in similar cases - leading to confusion and chaos within the legal system.