In the case of George W. and Henry Sizer v. William V. Many, the plaintiffs in error argued that a deed given to them by Many was invalid due to his lack of authority as an agent for another party who had previously owned the land in question. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that although there were some irregularities with respect to how they acquired title to their property, these issues did not render it void or otherwise invalidate it under existing law at the time. Furthermore, since they had taken possession of and made improvements on this land prior to bringing suit against Many, their claim was barred by laches - a legal doctrine which holds that those who delay too long in asserting their rights may be precluded from doing so altogether.

In the case of George W. and Henry Sizer v. William V. Many, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided due to an alleged mistake in one party's understanding of it if there is no evidence that this misunderstanding was caused by fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of the other party. The dissent further argued that even if such a mistake had been made, it would have been reasonable for both parties to assume they were bound by their agreement until either side took steps to void it or modify its terms through negotiation or legal action. As such, they believed that any attempt to invalidate the contract based solely on one party's mistaken belief about its contents should be rejected as unjustified under existing law and precedent at the time.