This Supreme Court case involved Francis Warner, the plaintiff in error, and Cephas H. Norton, Albert Jewett, Benjamin C. Busby, John C. Phelps, John J. Phelps Isaac N. Phelps and James Beman who were defendants in the case. The dispute was over a contract between Warner and Norton that stated that if Warner sold certain real estate to Norton for $1050 then he would receive an additional sum of money from him at some point later on down the road as well as other considerations such as a horse or cow depending on what they agreed upon at the time of sale which never happened due to disagreements between them both regarding payment terms for said property . The court ultimately ruled in favor of Norton stating that there was no evidence presented by either party proving any sort of agreement had been made beyond just selling the land itself so therefore no further payments were owed by him to Warner under their original contract agreement .

In the case of Francis Warner v. Cephas H. Norton et al., the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between Warner and Norton was valid, despite not being in writing as required by statute. The dissent reasoned that although there was no written agreement, both parties had acted on it for several years prior to litigation and thus should be bound by its terms. Furthermore, they noted that an oral agreement is just as binding under common law principles if it can be proven through circumstantial evidence such as witnesses or other documents related to the transaction at hand. They concluded that since this particular contract could be proved through such evidence, then it should stand even though it did not meet statutory requirements for a written document.