Henry Chouteau brought a case against Patrick Molony to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that Molony owed Chouteau for goods and services provided by him. In his defense, Molony argued that he had already paid off part of the debt in cash and with notes from other individuals who were liable on them. He also claimed that he had given Chouteau some land as payment for the remainder of what he owed him. However, Chouteau denied this claim and asserted that none of these payments constituted full satisfaction for what was due to him from Molony. After considering both sides' arguments, the court ruled in favor of Henry Chouteau, finding that there was no evidence presented which showed any kind of agreement between himself and Patrick Molony regarding partial or complete satisfaction for his debt through alternative means such as land or notes from third parties. As a result, it held that all outstanding debts must be paid in full according to their original terms before either party could be released from liability under contract law principles

In the case of Henry Chouteau v. Patrick Molony, Justice Daniel delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have found for the plaintiff on his claim against defendant Molony. He believed that under Missouri law, as it existed at the time of this dispute, an action could be brought to recover damages from a party who had wrongfully taken possession of another's property and refused to return it upon demand. In this case, Chouteau had demanded possession of his land back from Molony but was denied; thus Justice Daniel felt that there was sufficient evidence for him to find in favor of Chouteau and award him damages accordingly. Furthermore, he noted that even if no such cause of action existed under Missouri law at the time (which he did not believe), then equity would still require a judgment in favor or Chouteau due to Molony’s wrongful actions towards him.