In Farish Carter v. Archibald T. Bennett, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case regarding an alleged breach of contract between two parties in which one party failed to fulfill their obligations as outlined in a written agreement. The plaintiff, Farish Carter, argued that he had been wrongfully deprived of his rights under the contract and sought damages from defendant Archibald T. Bennett for failing to abide by its terms. The court ultimately found in favor of Mr. Carter and awarded him damages based on his losses due to Mr Bennett’s failure to perform according to their agreement; however, it also noted that if there was any ambiguity or uncertainty surrounding either party's interpretation or understanding of the contractual language then both parties should have taken steps towards clarifying those issues prior to entering into such an arrangement so as not be held liable for any misunderstandings later on down the line

In the case of Farish Carter v. Archibald T. Bennett, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had no legal right to recover damages from the defendant for an alleged breach of contract. He reasoned that since there was no written agreement between them, and since they were not parties to any other form of contract or understanding, there could be no basis for recovery under existing law. Furthermore, he noted that even if such a contract existed it would have been void due to its illegality as it violated public policy by attempting to transfer title without proper authority from the state government where it originated. Finally, Chief Justice Taney concluded his dissent by noting that while this decision may appear harsh on its face given all circumstances presented in this case; however justice must prevail over sympathy and equity when determining matters before court proceedings