In the case of David Wilkinson vs. Thomas Leland and Others, the plaintiff in error argued that he had been wrongfully evicted from his property by the defendants in error. The Supreme Court found that although there was a dispute over who owned certain lands, it was not within their jurisdiction to decide which party held title to them as this would require an examination of facts outside of what they were presented with. Furthermore, since no legal action had been taken against Wilkinson prior to his eviction, the court ruled that he should be restored possession of said land until such time as a proper suit could be brought before them for determination on ownership rights.

In the case of David Wilkinson vs. Thomas Leland and Others, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should not be voided simply because one party did not have full knowledge of all its terms at the time it was signed. The majority had argued that since Wilkinson had been unaware of certain conditions in his agreement with Leland, he could no longer be bound by them and thus their contract should be declared void. However, Justice Story disagreed with this ruling on the grounds that ignorance or misunderstanding is an insufficient basis to invalidate a binding agreement; rather, if there are any doubts as to what has been agreed upon then those must first be resolved before either party can claim breach of contract. Furthermore, Story argued that even if one side does possess more information than another about a particular transaction they still cannot take advantage of such knowledge unless it is explicitly stated in writing within their contractual arrangement - which was not present here - making both sides equally responsible for understanding all aspects involved in their deal prior to signing off on it.