In the case of Thomas E. Ellis, Jonathan M. Hill, Daniel Roper and T. B Bethea (plaintiffs in error) v Thomas Jones (administrator of Montraville D Taylor deceased), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a slave owner had the right to bequeath his slaves as part of his estate after he passed away. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to their freedom due to an agreement made between them and their former master prior to his death which stated that if they served him faithfully for a certain period then they would receive their freedom upon completion of service or at any time thereafter should he choose so before dying. The defendant argued that since slavery was legal in Georgia where this agreement took place it could not be enforced by law because it violated state laws regarding manumission - freeing slaves from bondage without permission from local authorities being obtained first - which were deemed unconstitutional under federal law at the time. After considering both sides’ arguments, the court ruled in favor of the defendants stating that even though there may have been an oral contract between parties involved, such contracts are unenforceable when related directly or indirectly with slavery matters due its illegality according to federal statutes governing interstate commerce and other relevant laws pertaining thereto

In this case, the plaintiffs argued that they had a valid contract with Montraville D. Taylor to purchase certain land and were entitled to specific performance of the agreement. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that there was no evidence of an enforceable contract between the parties due to lack of consideration and mutuality in their agreement. The dissenting opinion argued that while it may be true that there was not sufficient consideration or mutuality for a binding contract under common law principles, equity should still provide relief for the plaintiffs since they had already made substantial improvements on the property in reliance on their understanding with Taylor. Furthermore, it would be unjust for Jones as administrator of Taylor's estate to benefit from these improvements without providing any compensation back to Ellis et al., who relied upon what they believed was an enforceable agreement when making them.