In the case of Wright v. Denn, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be held liable for damages caused by an animal that had been sold without any warranty or guarantee as to its safety. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to recover damages from the defendant because he had purchased a horse from him and it subsequently injured him while in his possession. The court found in favor of the defendant, ruling that there was no legal basis for holding him responsible since he did not make any promises about the quality or condition of the horse when it was sold. Furthermore, they noted that even if such warranties were impliedly given at time of sale, they would have expired once ownership changed hands and thus could not form part of this particular dispute.

In this case, the plaintiff argued that a judgment against him in an action of debt was void because it had been entered by a justice of the peace who did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that even if the justice lacked jurisdiction, his decision could still be enforced as long as he acted within his apparent authority. The dissenting opinion argued that allowing judgments to stand when they were made without proper legal authority would lead to injustice and confusion in court proceedings. Furthermore, such decisions should not be allowed to stand since they are contrary to public policy which is meant to protect citizens from wrongful convictions or punishments. Ultimately, the dissent concluded that any judgment rendered by someone with no legal power should be considered null and void regardless of whether or not they appeared authorized at first glance.