Jesse B. Clements was the plaintiff in error in a Supreme Court case against Daniel Berry. The dispute arose from an agreement between Clements and Berry, wherein Clements agreed to pay $500 for a tract of land owned by Berry. After paying $200, however, he refused to make any further payments on the property due to its alleged poor quality and lack of title deeds or other documents proving ownership. In response, Berry sued him for breach of contract and won at trial court level; this decision was then appealed by Clements all the way up to the US Supreme Court where it ultimately found that there had been no fraud committed by either party during their negotiations nor any misrepresentation as regards title deeds or ownership rights which would have voided their original agreement - thus affirming that Jesse B. Clement's refusal constituted a breach of contract with Daniel Berry and upholding his lower court victory accordingly.

In the case of Jesse B. Clements v. Daniel Berry, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract. He reasoned that although there were some ambiguities in the language used by both parties when entering into their agreement, it was clear that they had intended to enter into an enforceable contract and thus should be held liable for any losses resulting from its breach. Furthermore, he noted that even if certain terms were not explicitly stated at the time of formation, this did not necessarily mean they could not be implied later on as part of a court's interpretation of what had been agreed upon between them. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that since all other justices had failed to consider these points adequately or provide sufficient evidence against them being valid arguments in favor of awarding damages to Clements, his dissent should stand and prevail over their majority decision denying him such relief.