In Robert Barry v. Griffith Coombe, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute between two parties over an unpaid debt. The appellant, Robert Barry, had loaned money to the appellee, Griffith Coombe and sought payment in return. However, Coombe refused to pay back the debt on grounds that it was not legally binding due to lack of consideration or mutual agreement from both parties at the time of contract formation. In its ruling, the court held that although there was no express agreement between them when they entered into their transaction for repayment of money lent by Barry to Coombe; nevertheless such a promise is implied by law as sufficient consideration for enforcing it in equity and therefore must be honored by both parties involved. This decision established precedent regarding contracts made without explicit agreements but with implicit understanding among all those involved which can still be enforced under equitable principles if necessary.

In the case of Robert Barry vs. Griffith Coombe, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and two other justices. He argued that the lower court's decision to grant an injunction against Barry was wrong because it was based on a mistake in law. According to Story, there were no facts presented which showed that Barry had committed any breach of contract or fraud; rather, he simply failed to perform his obligations under the contract due to unforeseen circumstances beyond his control. As such, Story believed that granting an injunction would be unjust and contrary to established legal principles regarding contracts and equity. Furthermore, he noted that if such injunctions were allowed without proof of actual damages caused by non-performance then it could lead to great injustice as parties may be prevented from performing their contractual duties even when they are willing and able but unable due solely through no fault of their own.