In Taylor Brown v. Leroy M. Wiley et al., the plaintiff in error brought suit against a group of merchants trading under the name and style of L.M. Wiley & Co, claiming that they had wrongfully refused to accept payment for goods purchased by him from them on credit and instead sued him for debt collection without due process or notice. The Supreme Court held that although it was within their rights to refuse payment, they were not allowed to sue for debt collection without providing proper notice first as this would be an infringement upon his right to due process under the law. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Brown and ordered Wiley & Co pay all costs associated with bringing suit against them as well as any damages incurred by Brown during this time period

In the dissenting opinion of Taylor Brown v. Leroy M. Wiley, Hugh R. Banks, William G. Lane, Henry Van Derzee and Edward H. Lane (trading under the name L.M Wiley & Co), Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case in court as he was unable to provide evidence that a contract existed between himself and defendants for goods sold on credit or any other form of agreement regarding payment terms for said goods; thus there was no legal basis upon which to award damages against them as requested by plaintiff's counsel in this case . Furthermore, Justice McLean stated that even if such an agreement did exist it would be unenforceable due to its lack of consideration from both parties involved - meaning neither party gave anything up nor received anything in return when entering into said arrangement - making it invalid according to law at the time . In conclusion , Justice McLean believed that while sympathy should be extended towards Plaintiff Brown due to his unfortunate circumstances , justice must still prevail over emotion and therefore ruled against him based on insufficient proof presented during trial proceedings .