Edwin M. Chaffee, Trustee of Horace H. Day, and Horace H. Day himself brought a case against Nathaniel Hayward to the United States Supreme Court in 1857. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that had been incurred by Hayward for goods purchased from Day’s store in Massachusetts before he moved to Maine with his family and opened another business there. In order for the court to decide whether or not Haywood should be held liable for this debt, it needed to determine if a contract between him and Day had been formed when he made purchases at the store prior to moving away from Massachusetts; as well as if such contracts were still valid after relocating out-of-state due to changes in state laws regarding personal debts during that time period. Ultimately, the court ruled that since no contract existed between them at any point prior or after Hayward's relocation, he could not be held responsible for paying back what was owed on these goods purchased while living in Massachusetts - thus absolving him of all liability related thereto.

In the case of Edwin M. Chaffee, Trustee of Horace H. Day v Nathaniel Hayward, Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff's claim should have been allowed to proceed as it was based on an equitable right and not a legal one. He noted that although there were technical defects in the pleadings, they did not affect the merits of the case and should be disregarded if justice is to prevail. Furthermore, he stated that since this was an action for specific performance rather than damages or other relief at law, equity had jurisdiction over it regardless of any formalities or irregularities in pleading or procedure. In conclusion, Justice Curtis maintained that allowing such claims would promote fairness and prevent injustice from occurring due to procedural errors beyond a party's control.