Charles J. Gayler and Leonard Brown were plaintiffs in error who brought a case against Benjamin G. Wilder to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute arose from an agreement between Gayler, Brown, and Wilder for the sale of certain real estate located in New York City. According to this agreement, Wilder was obligated to pay $2,000 as part of his purchase price; however he failed to do so by the agreed-upon date set forth in their contract. As a result, Gayler and Brown sued him for breach of contract seeking damages equal to what they would have received had he paid on time according to their original agreement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that although there was no specific provision within their contract regarding interest payments or late fees due upon failure of payment by deadline, it should be implied that such terms existed given its nature as a commercial transaction involving money owed for goods purchased with an established timeline for payment completion - therefore awarding them damages accordingly based on these implied terms included within any reasonable interpretation of said contract's provisions .

In the dissenting opinion of Charles J. Gayler and Leonard Brown v Benjamin G. Wilder, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiffs had a valid claim to their land since they were in possession of it before Wilder acquired his title from the state. He further noted that although there was no deed or other written evidence to prove this fact, oral testimony should be sufficient for establishing ownership rights over property when it is not disputed by either party involved in litigation. Furthermore, he stated that if such evidence is accepted as proof of ownership then any subsequent titles granted by states would be rendered invalid due to lack of legal authority on their part; thus making them void ab initio (from inception). Finally, he concluded that even though Wilder may have been unaware at the time he purchased his title from Ohio’s legislature about prior claims made against said land, this does not absolve him from liability nor make him immune from being sued for damages caused due to wrongful possession and use thereof.