John Sigerson, the plaintiff in error, brought a case against Edward Mathews to the Supreme Court. The dispute was over an unpaid debt of $1,000 that Sigerson claimed he loaned to Mathews. In order for him to receive payment from Mathews, Sigerson had filed a writ of attachment on certain property owned by his debtor. However, when it came time for the court hearing regarding this matter and despite being served with notice of such proceedings beforehand, neither party appeared before the court nor did they submit any evidence or testimony as part of their respective cases. As a result, without any proof or argument presented by either side during trial and based solely on what was stated in their pleadings alone (i.e., affidavits), judgment was rendered in favor of John Sigerson and against Edward Mathews who then appealed this decision all the way up to Supreme Court level whereupon review it was determined that since no actual evidence had been submitted at trial there wasn't enough information available upon which to make an informed ruling; thus rendering said judgment null and void due its lack thereof sufficient facts/evidence necessary for proper adjudication purposes - therefore reversing lower court's original verdict accordingly while remanding back down below so as new proceedings could be held wherein both parties would have opportunity present whatever relevant material needed prove/disprove claims made therein prior final determination reached concerning same issue(s) raised originally between them heretofore discussed hereinabove

In the case of John Sigerson v. Edward Mathews, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it is not in writing and signed by both parties. The majority opinion had held that such contracts were invalid because they lacked a written agreement or signature from both sides. However, the dissent argued that this was an overly strict interpretation of existing law and would lead to unjust results for those who relied on verbal agreements made in good faith. Furthermore, there was evidence presented at trial which showed that all elements necessary for a valid contract existed: offer, acceptance, consideration and mutual assent; thus making it unfair to deny enforcement simply due to lack of formalities like signatures or writing down terms. The dissent concluded by stating its belief that enforcing these types of contracts would ultimately benefit society as people could rely on their word being upheld when entering into agreements with others without fear of them later being deemed unenforceable due to technicalities like lack of signatures or written documents.