Matthew Watson brought a case against Colin S. Tarpley to the Supreme Court in 1855. The dispute was over whether or not Tarpley had wrongfully taken possession of land that belonged to Watson, and if so, what damages he should be required to pay for it. In its decision, the court held that although there were some discrepancies between the two parties' stories about how they came into possession of the land in question, ultimately it was found that Tarpley had wrongfully taken control of it from Watson and thus owed him compensation for his losses as a result. Furthermore, since this action occurred before any legal title could be established by either party on said property, no lien or other encumbrance would attach itself to it until such time as one did obtain legal title through proper channels. As such, all claims made by both sides prior to obtaining legal title were rendered moot and unenforceable under law at this point in time.

In the case of Matthew Watson v. Colin S. Tarpley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy and thus should not be given effect by courts of law. However, Justice Curtis dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there was no evidence to suggest that enforcing such contracts would violate public policy or cause any harm to society as a whole; instead, he argued that allowing them would simply provide relief for individuals who have entered into agreements with good faith intentions but are unable to fulfill their obligations due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control. He further noted that denying enforcement of these types of contracts may lead people away from entering into valid ones out of fear they will not be able to rely on them being upheld in court if something goes wrong down the line.