This Supreme Court case involved Benjamin F. Morgan, the plaintiff in error, and Alfred G. Curtinius and John L. Griswold as defendants in error. The dispute arose from a contract between Morgan and Curtinius for the sale of land located in Wisconsin Territory that was owned by both parties at the time of their agreement. In accordance with this contract, Morgan paid $1,000 to Curtinius who then transferred his interest to Griswold without informing or consulting with Morgan beforehand; thus leaving him unaware of any changes made to the original agreement until after he had already paid out money for it. As such, when he found out about these alterations he sued both men on grounds that they had breached their contractual obligations towards him by not providing full disclosure prior to payment being made on his part; however this claim was rejected by lower courts due to lack of evidence proving that either party acted fraudulently or maliciously during negotiations leading up to purchase completion which is why it eventually reached Supreme Court level whereupon justices ruled against him once again citing same reasons given previously but also adding an additional one - namely that since no written document existed outlining terms agreed upon between all three parties there could be no legal basis established for upholding any claims brought forth against them regardless if they were valid or not thereby making entire lawsuit moot point altogether .

In the case of Benjamin F. Morgan v. Alfred G. Curtenius and John L. Griswold, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have reversed the decision of the Circuit Court because it was based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal law or constitutional principles. He believed that since there were no federal laws at issue, it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to interfere with a lower court's ruling on matters concerning state law; instead, they should only intervene when necessary to protect rights guaranteed by either federal statutes or constitutional provisions. Furthermore, Taney argued that even if there had been some error in interpreting state law by either party involved in this case, such errors could be corrected through other means without involving judicial review from higher courts like those within his jurisdiction as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court