In William Tyrell's Heirs, Plaintiffs in Error v. Andrew Rountree and Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a deed from an executor of a will could be used as evidence against the heirs of that will. The plaintiffs argued that since they were not parties to the deed, it should not be admitted into evidence. However, after considering both sides' arguments and relevant case law on this issue, the court ruled in favor of Rountree and others by holding that such deeds are admissible as evidence against all persons interested in or affected by them. This decision established precedent for future cases involving similar issues related to wills and estates.

In William Tyrell's Heirs, Plaintiffs in Error v. Andrew Rountree and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of gift from a father to his son could be revoked after the death of both parties. The majority opinion held that it could not be revoked because there was no evidence that either party had intended for it to be revocable. However, Justice Story dissented on this point and argued that since the deed did not contain any language indicating an intent for irrevocability, then it should have been presumed revocable under common law principles. He further stated that if such presumption were applied in this case then the deed would have been considered void upon revocation by the father prior to his death and thus would not pass onto his son as part of his estate at death. Therefore he concluded that since there was no clear indication one way or another regarding intent for irrevocability within the terms of their agreement, then they should have followed common law precedent which presumes all deeds are revocable unless otherwise specified by its terms