In the Supreme Court case of William Stairs and Another v. Charles H. Peaslee, the plaintiffs alleged that they had purchased a certain tract of land from Peaslee in 1851 for $2,000. The deed was not recorded until after it was discovered that another person had previously obtained title to part of the same tract by virtue of an earlier grant from the United States government. As such, Stairs and his co-plaintiff sought to recover back their purchase money on grounds that they were misled into believing they were purchasing exclusive rights to all parts of said tract when in fact only partial ownership could be granted due to prior claims held by others. In its ruling, the court found no evidence supporting any fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of Peaslee as he did not make any false statements regarding ownership at time sale took place nor did he have knowledge about other existing titles which would have prevented him from granting full title anyway; thus affirming lower court’s decision denying recovery for plaintiffs’ damages incurred as result thereof

In the case of William Stairs and Another v. Charles H. Peaslee, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The majority opinion had held that an oral agreement made by one party was invalid because it contradicted a prior written agreement between them, but the dissent disagreed with this interpretation of the law. They argued that if both parties agreed to modify their original contract through an oral exchange then they should be allowed to do so without being penalized for not having put it in writing first. Furthermore, they stated that any ambiguity in interpreting contracts must be resolved in favor of enforcing them rather than disregarding them altogether; thus, since no clear evidence existed suggesting either party intended to break or alter their initial agreement, it should have been upheld and enforced as originally written.