In the case of William D. Nutt, Executor of Alexander Hunter, Deceased v. Philip H. Minor, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties was valid and binding or not. The plaintiff argued that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant to purchase certain lands in Virginia for $2,000; however, when it came time to pay for them he refused to do so on account of his belief that they were worth more than what he agreed upon paying for them. The court found in favor of the plaintiff and held that since there had been no fraud or misrepresentation involved in entering into this contract then it must be enforced as written regardless if one party believed they could have gotten a better deal elsewhere at some other point in time afterwards. This decision serves as an important reminder about how contracts should always be taken seriously and honored even if one side believes they may have made a mistake by signing it due to their own lack of knowledge or understanding about its terms at the time being negotiated initially

In the case of William D. Nutt, Executor of Alexander Hunter, Deceased v. Philip H. Minor, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Virginia's statute of limitations did not apply to this particular case because it was an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant and therefore should be governed by the laws of Maryland where the cause arose rather than those of Virginia where both parties resided at the time suit was filed. He further noted that if such suits were subject to state statutes then they would be deprived from their right to seek justice in federal courts as provided for under Article III Section 2 Clause 1of The Constitution and thus denied equal protection under law guaranteed by Amendment XIV Section 1 .