Alexander Cross, William L. Hobson, and William Hooper were trading under the name and style of Cross, Hobson & Company when they brought a case against Edward H. Harrison to the Supreme Court in 1853. The plaintiffs claimed that Harrison had breached an agreement with them by failing to pay for goods he had purchased from their store on credit. In response, Harrison argued that he was not liable because his signature did not appear on any written document confirming the transaction between him and the plaintiffs; instead it was signed by another party who acted as his agent without proper authority or consent from him. After hearing both sides' arguments, the court ruled in favor of Harrison due to lack of evidence proving that he had agreed to purchase goods from Cross et al., thus absolving him of any liability for payment owed to them.

In the dissenting opinion of Alexander Cross, William L. Hobson, and William Hooper v. Edward H. Harrison, the dissenters argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written regardless of any outside factors or circumstances that may have changed since its signing. The plaintiffs had entered into an agreement with defendant to purchase certain goods at a set price but due to market fluctuations in prices after they signed the contract, they sought to renegotiate it for lower terms than what was originally agreed upon by both parties. The dissenters argued that this would create uncertainty in contracts and make them unenforceable if one party could simply change their mind after entering into an agreement based on changing external conditions which were out of either party's control when the original contract was made. They believed such actions would undermine public confidence in contracts and lead to chaos within commercial transactions so therefore all agreements must be held binding even if unforeseen events occur afterwards which cause one side or another financial hardship or loss from fulfilling their obligations under said agreement