The Frances and Eliza Coates case was a dispute between two sisters over the ownership of their father's estate. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Frances, who argued that she had been given her share of the inheritance by her father before his death. On the other hand, Eliza claimed that she should have received an equal portion as well. The court found that since there was no written evidence to support either sister’s claim, they would need to rely on oral testimony from witnesses who could attest to what their father said prior to his passing. Ultimately, it was determined that Frances had indeed been promised a portion of the inheritance by her father and thus awarded with it accordingly. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving verbal agreements without any written documentation or proof available at trial.

In the case of Frances and Eliza Coates, Claimant, the dissenting opinion argued that Congress had not intended to grant a pension to widows who were married after their husband's service in the Revolutionary War. The majority opinion held that since Mrs. Coates was legally married at the time her husband died while serving in his military capacity during wartime, she should be granted a pension as provided by law. However, Justice Story disagreed with this interpretation of Congressional intent and argued that it would lead to an absurd result if all subsequent marriages entered into by veterans or their widows were also eligible for pensions under similar circumstances. He further noted that such an interpretation would open up eligibility for pensions beyond what Congress had originally intended when they passed legislation granting them in 1818.