William Brewster appealed to the United States Supreme Court after a lower court ruled in favor of William Wakefield. The dispute between the two men centered around an agreement made by Brewster and Wakefield for the sale of land located in Michigan. According to their contract, Wakefield was obligated to pay $1,000 for the property within one year from its purchase date; however, he failed to do so. As a result, Brewster sought damages from him as compensation for his breach of contract. The Supreme Court ultimately found that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial which showed that both parties had agreed upon all terms related to this transaction and thus affirmed the decision rendered by the lower court in favor of Wakefield.

In the case of William Brewster v. William Wakefield, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment in favor of Wakefield should be reversed due to an alleged error in admitting evidence at trial. The majority opinion held that there had been no such error and affirmed the lower court's decision. However, Justice Grier dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that it was improper for the lower court to have admitted certain testimony which did not directly relate to any issue before them; secondly, he contended that even if this testimony were admissible under normal circumstances, it should have been excluded because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. In conclusion, Justice Grier believed that reversal was warranted and would serve as a reminder of how important it is for courts to carefully consider all relevant factors when deciding what evidence may or may not be admitted into proceedings.