Ferdinand Clark, the appellant in this case, was appealing a decision made by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. The original suit had been brought against him by Benjamin C. Clark and William H. Y Hackett to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract concerning certain real estate that Ferdinand had sold them. In his appeal, Ferdinand argued that he should not be held liable because there were no written contracts between himself and either party involved in the suit; instead they relied on verbal agreements which could not be enforced under Maryland law at that time due to its Statute of Frauds requirement for all land transactions to have a written agreement signed by both parties as proof of sale or transfer. Ultimately, however, it was determined that although there were no written documents present in this particular case, sufficient evidence existed from other sources such as witnesses who testified about their knowledge regarding these verbal agreements which allowed them to prove their claims against Ferdinand without relying solely on any one document or piece of paper alone. As such, it was ruled in favor of Benjamin C Clark and William H Y Hackett with costs awarded accordingly

In the case of Ferdinand Clark v. Benjamin C. Clark and William H. Y. Hackett, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from Ferdinand to his brother Benjamin was valid or not due to its lack of consideration and delivery at the time it was made. The majority opinion held that since there had been no consideration given for this deed, nor any delivery thereof, it could not be enforced against either party in court as a contract between them; however, Justice Catron dissented with this ruling on two grounds: firstly that although there had been no actual payment or delivery involved in making this agreement between brothers, they were still bound by an implied obligation based on their relationship; secondly he argued that even if such an obligation did not exist then equity should step in and provide relief for both parties as justice demanded it - thus allowing enforcement of the deed regardless of any technicalities surrounding its creation which would otherwise prevent it from being legally binding upon either party.