In Brashear v. Mason, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between William C. Brashear and the United States Navy had been breached by either party. The case arose when Brashear entered into an agreement with the Navy in 1845 for him to construct a steam engine for use on one of their vessels. He completed his work two years later but was not paid until 1848, after he filed suit against John Y. Mason, Secretary of the Navy at that time. The Supreme Court found that although there had been some delay in payment due to administrative issues within the government, it did not constitute breach of contract as no specific date or timeline had been agreed upon by both parties prior to entering into said agreement; thus affirming lower court's decision and dismissing plaintiff's claim against defendant without prejudice or costs awarded either way.

In the case of William C. Brashear v. John Y. Mason, Secretary of the Navy, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to pass legislation concerning naval officers' pay and allowances as it was not specifically enumerated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. He further stated that if Congress did have such power then it would be unconstitutional for them to delegate this responsibility to another branch or department without any oversight from themselves or an independent judiciary body. Furthermore, he argued that even if they could legally do so there should still be some form of judicial review over their decisions since they are binding on citizens and can affect their rights and property interests significantly; otherwise individuals would have no recourse when faced with arbitrary decisions made by executive departments like the Navy Department in this case.