In Viers and Wife v. Montgomery, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving two parties who had entered into an agreement to purchase land in Kentucky from one another. The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Viers, alleged that they had paid for their portion of the land but that defendant Montgomery refused to transfer title or provide them with possession of it as agreed upon in their contract. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Montgomery to convey title over to them immediately so they could take possession of their property rights without further delay or interference from him. Furthermore, damages were awarded against Montgomery for his breach of contract which included costs associated with bringing suit against him as well as interest on any payments made by Mr. and Mrs Viers prior to this decision being rendered by the court

In the case of Viers and Wife v. Montgomery, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Washington and Livingston. He argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to restrain defendants from entering upon land in dispute because it was uncertain whether or not they had any legal right to do so. The chief justice reasoned that if the plaintiff's title were valid, then he would be entitled to relief; however, since there was no proof presented as to its validity, it could not be assumed that their claim was justifiable. Furthermore, Marshall noted that granting such an injunction without sufficient evidence would set a dangerous precedent for future cases where similar circumstances existed but with different outcomes depending on which party held superior rights over disputed property. Ultimately, he concluded by stating his belief that courts should only grant injunctions when clear facts are established beyond reasonable doubt in order to ensure fairness for all parties involved in litigation proceedings involving real estate disputes.