John Zacharie and his wife brought a case against Henry Franklin and his wife in the Supreme Court. The dispute was over a piece of land that had been sold to John by Henry, but which Henry later claimed he still owned. In order to resolve the issue, both parties agreed to have their respective titles examined by an impartial third party who would then decide who held rightful ownership of the property. After examining all relevant documents, it was determined that John did indeed own the land as he had purchased it from Henry legally and without any fraud or misrepresentation on either side. As such, the court ruled in favor of John Zacharie and upheld his right to possess said property free from interference or disturbance from anyone else including Henry Franklin and his wife.

In the case of John Zacharie and Wife v. Henry Franklin and Wife, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it is not in writing. The majority opinion held that an oral agreement was invalid because it had not been written down or signed by both parties, but the dissent disagreed with this interpretation of Louisiana law. They argued that there was sufficient evidence to prove that an oral contract existed between John Zacharie and Henry Franklin; therefore, they believed it should be upheld as valid despite its lack of formality. Furthermore, they contended that enforcing such contracts would benefit society by encouraging people to enter into agreements without fear of them being disregarded due to technicalities like a lack of formal documentation. Ultimately, while their argument did not prevail in this instance, their dissenting opinion serves as an important reminder for courts today: when evaluating contractual disputes involving verbal agreements only, judges must consider all available evidence before ruling on whether or not those contracts are legally binding.