Elisha Bloomer appealed to the US Supreme Court against John W. McQuewan, Allen R. McQuewan and Samuel Douglas who were partners under the name of McQuewans & Douglas. The case revolved around a contract dispute between Bloomer and the partnership in which he claimed that they had failed to pay him for services rendered as an agent for them in 1848-1849. He argued that he was entitled to compensation according to their agreement but his claim was rejected by a jury trial at circuit court level due to lack of evidence presented by Bloomer's counsel during proceedings. The US Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Bloomer, finding that there was sufficient evidence provided by his counsel and ordering payment from defendants accordingly. This ruling set an important precedent regarding contracts disputes where it is now necessary for both parties involved in such cases provide adequate proof before any judgement can be made on either side's claims or defenses

In the dissenting opinion of Elisha Bloomer v. John W. McQuewan, Allen R. McQuewan, and Samuel Douglas (McQuewans & Douglas), Justice Grier argued that the court should have granted a new trial to Bloomer due to errors in jury instructions given by the lower court judge during his initial trial for breach of contract against McQuewans & Douglas. Specifically, Grier argued that there was no evidence presented at trial showing any agreement between Bloomer and defendants as to what constituted “goods” or “merchandise” under their contract; therefore, it was improper for the judge to instruct jurors on this point without such evidence being provided first. Additionally, he noted that while some testimony had been offered regarding an alleged verbal agreement between parties concerning goods sold by defendants prior to formation of their partnership—which would be relevant if true—the jury had not been instructed on how they should consider this information when making their decision about whether or not a breach occurred in this case. As such, Grier concluded that these errors were sufficient grounds for granting a new trial since they could have impacted jurors' understanding of facts necessary for them reach an informed verdict in favor either party involved here.