William Bailey, plaintiff in error, brought a case against William B. Dozier to the United States Supreme Court. The dispute was over an alleged breach of contract between the two parties regarding a land sale transaction. Bailey claimed that he had purchased certain lands from Dozier and paid him for them but never received title or possession of the property as promised by Dozier. He sought damages for his losses due to this breach of contract and requested that the court grant him relief from any further obligations under said agreement with Dozier. The Supreme Court found in favor of Bailey, ruling that he was entitled to recover all sums which he had expended on account of such purchase and also awarded him additional damages for loss suffered through non-performance by defendant's failure to convey title or possession as agreed upon in their original contract.

In the case of William Bailey v. William B. Dozier, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it for further proceedings. He asserted that there was sufficient evidence to support Bailey's claim that Dozier had fraudulently obtained title to his property by misrepresenting himself as its rightful owner and selling it without authorization from Bailey or any other party with legal authority over it. Furthermore, McLean argued that even if this were not true, then at least some form of equitable relief should be granted to Bailey due to his long-standing possession of the land prior to Dozier's acquisition thereof. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that justice would best be served by reversing and remanding this case so as to allow for a more thorough examination into all relevant facts before rendering a final decision on who is rightfully entitled ownership over said property.