Brush v. Condit was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1877. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in Ohio. The plaintiff, Brush, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Condit, in 1871. However, Condit argued that he had never sold the land to Brush and that he still owned it. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Brush, ruling that he had acquired the land through a valid contract with Condit. The Court held that the contract was binding and that Brush was the rightful owner of the land. The Court also noted that Condit had failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that he had not sold the land to Brush. The decision in Brush v. Condit established the principle that a contract is binding and that a party cannot simply deny its existence. This case also established the importance of providing evidence to support one's claims in a court of law.

In Brush v. Condit, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a dissenting opinion in which Justice Brown argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that the trial court had erred by granting summary judgment to defendant Condit on plaintiff Brush's claim for breach of contract because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not an enforceable agreement existed between them. Specifically, he noted that while it was undisputed that no written contract existed between them, there were numerous emails exchanged between them discussing their business dealings and outlining certain terms related thereto; thus creating a factual dispute as to whether or not they had entered into an oral agreement sufficient enough to constitute a binding contract under Ohio law. Furthermore, he pointed out how both parties' actions indicated they believed such an agreement did exist - with each party relying upon its existence when performing various acts in furtherance thereof - thereby making summary judgment inappropriate given these circumstances. In conclusion, Justice Brown urged his colleagues on the court to reverse this ruling so as allow this case proceed towards resolution at trial where all disputed facts could be properly adjudicated before any final determination is made regarding liability for breach of contract