John B. Camden, the plaintiff in error, brought a case against Thomas C. Doremus, Cornelius R. Suydam, James Suydam and John M. Nixon who were defendants in error for an alleged breach of contract concerning the sale of real estate located in New York City. The dispute arose when Camden sold two lots to Doremus and his associates but failed to deliver deeds as agreed upon by both parties at the time of purchase; instead he delivered only mortgages on each lot with himself listed as mortgagee on both documents without any consideration paid by him or his assigns for such mortgages from either party involved in this transaction. The Supreme Court found that there was no valid consideration given by Camden which would make these mortgages legally binding and thus ruled that they were voidable at law due to lack of legal consideration being provided between all parties involved making them unenforceable contracts under common law principles established during this era; therefore it held that neither party had any right or claim over said property until proper deed transfers could be made according to their agreement prior to purchase which would then render them enforceable contracts once again under applicable laws governing such transactions within state boundaries where said properties are located at present day (New York).

In the case of John B. Camden v. Thomas C. Doremus, Cornelius R. Suydam, James Suydam and John M. Nixon, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written even if it is not beneficial to one party or both parties involved in the agreement have made a mistake in its formation or execution due to ignorance or inadvertence on their part. The majority opinion held that because there had been an error in drafting the contract which caused unequal benefits for each side, it could not be enforced according to its terms and must instead be reformed so as to make it equitable for all sides involved; however this would require re-writing parts of the original document which went against established precedent regarding contracts being binding upon signing regardless of any mistakes made by either party during negotiation or execution thereof unless fraud can be proven on behalf of one side over another . The dissent argued that such reformations were unnecessary since courts are obligated under law to enforce contracts as they are written without making changes based on perceived fairness between both sides when no fraud has occurred and thus urged upholding existing legal principles rather than creating new ones through judicial activism