John H. Bennett brought a case against Samuel F. Butterworth to the United States Supreme Court in 1850. The dispute was over an unpaid debt of $1,000 that Bennett claimed he was owed by Butterworth from 1845 when they had entered into a contract for the sale of land and timber in Michigan Territory. In his defense, Butterworth argued that the statute of limitations had expired on this debt since it had been more than five years since it was due and owing at the time suit was filed in 1849. The Supreme Court agreed with him and held that under Michigan law, which applied to this transaction because it took place before statehood, any action for money due must be commenced within five years or else all rights are extinguished forever after that period has elapsed. Therefore, Bennett's claim could not be enforced as he waited too long to bring suit against Butterworth for payment on their agreement from 1845

In the case of John H. Bennett v. Samuel F. Butterworth, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract and unjust enrichment due to an agreement between them regarding certain land transactions. The majority had held that there was no consideration given by either party and thus no enforceable contract existed between them; however, Justice McLean disagreed with this conclusion and found that sufficient consideration did exist as evidenced by both parties' actions in carrying out their respective obligations under the agreement. He further noted that even if there had been some defect or lack of formality in executing the agreement, it should still be enforced since both parties acted upon its terms and relied on each other's promises throughout their dealings with one another over several years prior to bringing suit against each other for breach of contract or unjust enrichment. Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that justice required a judgment for damages in favor of Bennett against Butterworth based on his dissent from the majority opinion