This case was between Henry D. Bridges, John K. Mabray, James N. Harper and Stern Simmonds (hereafter referred to as the plaintiffs) and William Armour, Henry Lake and Felix Walker (hereafter referred to as the defendants). The plaintiffs were merchants in trade under the name of “Bridges, Mabray & Company” while the defendants had purchased goods from them on credit with a promise to pay at a later date. When payment was not made by due date, an action for debt was brought against them by the plaintiffs in order to recover what they were owed plus interest charges that had accrued since then. In their defense, it was argued that there had been no consideration given for any agreement between both parties which would have bound them legally; thus making any contract voidable or unenforceable according to law at that time. After much deliberation over this matter of fact dispute regarding whether or not such an agreement existed between both parties prior to purchase of goods on credit terms -the court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff's claim stating that sufficient evidence did exist proving an implied understanding/agreement between all involved before sale took place; therefore holding all three defendants liable for repayment including interest charges incurred since then accordingly

In this case, the plaintiffs in error (Bridges, Mabray and Company) argued that they were entitled to a judgment against the defendants (Armour, Lake and Walker). The Supreme Court of Alabama had previously ruled in favor of Bridges et al. However, on appeal to the United States Supreme Court it was determined that there was no sufficient proof presented by Bridges et al. to support their claim for damages from Armour et al., thus reversing the decision of the lower court. In his dissenting opinion Justice McLean argued that although he agreed with much of what Chief Justice Taney said regarding lack of evidence provided by Bridges et al., he felt that if such evidence did exist then it should be considered as part of an equitable remedy which would allow them some form or relief from Armour et al.. He further stated that even though there may have been errors committed during trial proceedings below these should not necessarily prevent justice being served for all parties involved.