In the case of Josiah Walton, Administrator of Priscilla Cotton et al. v Allen Cotton, Noah Cotton and William E. Jones, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deed executed by Priscilla Cotton in 1841 to her son Allen was valid or not. The deed conveyed land that had been purchased by Priscilla's late husband from his father-in-law in 1790 and it included an agreement that if either party died without issue then their share would pass to their surviving siblings or heirs at law. After Priscilla passed away in 1845 her other children argued that they were entitled to a portion of the land as per this agreement but Allen claimed he owned it outright due to his mother's conveyance which stated she held "all right title and interest" in the property for him alone. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Allen finding that although there may have been some ambiguity surrounding what exactly was meant by "right title and interest", given its context within the larger document it could only be interpreted as meaning something less than full ownership rights - namely life estate with remainder over upon death without issue - which did not override any prior agreements between family members regarding inheritance rights on said property.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the complainants and plaintiffs in error should have been allowed to amend their bill. He believed that they had a right to do so under equity principles, as it was not necessary for them to prove title or possession of land at the time of filing their original bill. Furthermore, he noted that there were no allegations made by any party regarding prejudice due to an amendment being granted. Therefore, he concluded that allowing such an amendment would be consistent with justice and equity and should have been permitted by the court below.