This Supreme Court case involved James S. Brander and Hugh L. McKenna, plaintiffs in error, versus William E. Phillips and Henry Bell trading under the firm of William Phillips & Company, Rodah Horton, and Nathaniel Terry defendants in error. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties for goods to be delivered by Brander & McKenna to Phillips & Co., with payment due upon delivery or within sixty days thereafter if not paid on delivery. After delivering the goods as agreed upon but failing to receive payment within sixty days after delivery as specified in their agreement, Brander & McKenna sued for breach of contract against all four defendants who had been named in their original agreement with Phillips & Co.. Ultimately it was determined that only two of those four were liable for damages resulting from breach of contract since they had been specifically identified as being responsible for any debt incurred by their partnership business venture at the time when this particular transaction took place; thus exonerating Horton and Terry from any liability associated with this matter according to law at that time period.

In the case of James S. Brander and Hugh L. M'Kenna v William E. Phillips, Henry Bell, Rodah Horton, and Nathaniel Terry trading under the firm of William Phillips & Company, a dissenting opinion was issued by Justice McLean in which he argued that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their right to recover damages from the defendants as they did not present sufficient evidence to show that they were entitled to compensation for any breach of contract or injury caused by them. He further stated that even if there had been a breach of contract on behalf of one or more parties involved in this dispute it would have been difficult for either side to establish what amount should be paid out as damages due to lack of proof regarding how much money each party invested into this venture prior its dissolution. Ultimately Justice McLean concluded that while both sides may have suffered some losses due to this disagreement neither could demonstrate with certainty who was responsible nor what amount should be awarded so no judgment could be made at all in favor either plaintiff or defendant