In the case of Williamson and Others v. Daniel and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed executed in North Carolina by an individual who had been declared insane prior to its execution was valid. The court held that it was not, as the person lacked capacity due to their mental illness at the time of signing. In reaching this decision, they noted that while there may be some exceptions where a mentally ill person is able to understand what they are doing when executing a document, such cases must be proven on an individual basis before any action can be taken based upon them. This ruling established important precedent for future cases involving individuals with mental illnesses or disabilities attempting to enter into contracts or other legal agreements; if it cannot be shown that they were aware of what they were doing at the time of signing then whatever agreement has been made will likely not hold up in court.

In the case of Williamson and Others v. Daniel and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from an individual to himself as trustee for another person could be enforced in equity. The majority opinion held that such a deed could not be enforced because it violated public policy by allowing one party to benefit at the expense of another without any consideration being given. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were no legal or equitable principles which prohibited enforcement of such deeds; secondly, he noted that if these kinds of trusts had been recognized since time immemorial then they should continue to be recognized now. He concluded his dissent by stating that "it is better...to adhere firmly and steadily" to established precedents than it is "to make sudden changes in them."