In the case of Astor v. Wells et al., John Jacob Astor sued Thomas and Benjamin Wells for breach of contract. The dispute arose from a partnership agreement between the two parties, in which they agreed to purchase land in New York City with funds provided by Astor. After purchasing the land, however, it was discovered that part of it had already been sold to another party due to an error on behalf of one or both defendants. As such, Astor sought compensation for his losses as well as damages resulting from their failure to fulfill their contractual obligations. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that although there were some errors made on behalf of either party during this transaction, neither defendant could be held liable since they acted within good faith and without any intention to defraud or deceive anyone involved in this matter.

In the case of Astor v. Wells et al., Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law in ruling against Astor. He argued that under existing laws and regulations, it was not necessary for Astor to have obtained a license from Congress before engaging in trade with Native Americans on their own lands. Furthermore, he noted that even if such a license were required by law, there was no evidence presented at trial indicating that any harm or injury had been caused as a result of his actions. As such, Marshall concluded that the judgment should be reversed and remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with his opinion.