In the case of Jane Watson and Others v. John Mercer and Margaret Mercer, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a deed from William Watson to his daughter Jane was valid. The deed had been executed in 1819 but not recorded until 1831, after William's death. The Mercers argued that because it had not been recorded during William's lifetime, they were entitled to the property as purchasers for value without notice of any prior claim by Jane or her heirs. However, the Supreme Court held that under Virginia law at the time, an unrecorded conveyance could be enforced against subsequent purchasers if there was proof of delivery before death and sufficient evidence of its validity otherwise; thus it found in favor of Jane Watson and her heirs.

In the case of Jane Watson and Others v. John Mercer and Margaret Mercer, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided simply because one party was unaware of its terms. The majority had ruled in favor of voiding the contract due to lack of knowledge on behalf of one party, but Justice McLean disagreed with this decision. He believed that contracts should only be voided if they are fraudulent or unconscionable; otherwise, both parties must abide by their agreement regardless if one did not understand it fully at first. Furthermore, he argued that even though ignorance may have been present when signing a contract, it does not necessarily mean fraudulence or unfairness has occurred as well. Therefore, Justice McLean concluded his dissent by stating that contracts should remain valid unless there is evidence proving them to be invalid through fraudulence or other means which would make them unjustifiable for either side involved in the agreement.