James Barton brought a case against Robert Forsyt to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an alleged breach of contract between them, in which Barton claimed that Forsyt had failed to pay him for certain goods and services he provided. In his defense, Forsyt argued that there was no written agreement between them and therefore no legal obligation on his part to make payment. The court ultimately sided with Barton, ruling that even though there was not a formal written agreement in place, it could be inferred from their actions and words that they did have an understanding about what each party would receive in exchange for their respective contributions. This decision established the principle of promissory estoppel: if one party makes a promise or assurance without any consideration being exchanged but relies on this promise when making decisions or taking action based upon it then they are legally obligated to fulfill said promises regardless of whether or not there is a formal written contract involved.

In the case of James Barton v. Robert Forsyt, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim and should not be awarded damages. He noted that although there was evidence presented by both parties, it did not conclusively prove either party's position beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, he stated that even if some of the facts were proven true, they still would have been insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff as no actual damage had been done or suffered by him due to any wrongful act on behalf of Forsyt. In conclusion, Justice Grier believed that since neither side could definitively establish their claims with sufficient proof and evidence at trial, judgment should be entered in favor of Forsyt instead.