In Pierre Barribeau and Euphrsie T. Perry v Joshua B. Brant, the appellants sought to recover damages for a breach of contract from the defendant. The case arose when the defendant purchased land from them in 1851, but failed to make payments as agreed upon in their contract. The court found that there was sufficient evidence presented by both parties to prove that an agreement had been made between them and that it had been breached by the defendant's failure to pay according to its terms. However, since no specific amount of damages was specified in their agreement, they were unable only able to receive nominal damages due to this lack of specificity on behalf of both parties at trial. Ultimately, while finding for the appellants on liability grounds due to breach of contract, they were awarded minimal compensation due primarily because neither party could provide proof or details regarding any actual losses suffered as a result thereof

In the case of Pierre Barribeau and Euphrsie T. Perry v. Joshua B. Brant, the appellants argued that they had a valid claim to certain land in Michigan under an 1836 treaty between the United States and Native Americans from which they were descended. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that while it was true that some members of their tribe had been granted rights to this particular piece of land by virtue of said treaty, those rights did not extend to them as individuals since neither appellant could prove any direct connection with those who were actually named in the document itself. Furthermore, even if such a link existed, it would have been superseded by subsequent treaties or laws passed after 1836 which effectively extinguished all Indian title claims within Michigan's borders at that time; thus making any prior agreement null and void regardless of its original intent or purpose.