In Stevenson's Heirs v. Sullivant, the Supreme Court ruled that a deed of conveyance was valid despite being executed without consideration or delivery. The case involved two parties: Stevenson’s heirs and Sullivant. The dispute centered around a tract of land in Kentucky which had been conveyed to Sullivant by one of Stevenson’s heirs, but with no consideration given nor any delivery made on either side. Despite this lack of formalities, the court held that the deed was still binding and enforceable as it had been properly acknowledged before an officer authorized to take acknowledgments for deeds in Kentucky at the time. In its ruling, the court noted that although there were certain formalities required for such transactions under common law principles (i.e., consideration and delivery), these requirements could be waived if both parties agreed to do so through their conduct or agreement prior to execution of the deed itself; thus making it legally binding even without those elements present at execution stage

In Stevenson's Heirs v. Sullivant, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of conveyance from one party to another should be considered valid and binding if it had not been recorded in the county where the land was located. The majority opinion held that such a deed would not be enforceable unless it had been properly recorded in accordance with state law. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this ruling, arguing that there were no legal grounds for requiring recording as a prerequisite for validity of deeds. He argued that since an unrecorded deed is still legally binding between two parties who are aware of its existence and terms, then any third-party purchasers or creditors should also have knowledge of its contents before they can claim title or rights over property conveyed by such deeds. Therefore, he concluded that recording requirements were unnecessary and could lead to injustice when applied without due consideration for all affected parties' interests in the matter at hand.