Henry Dalton was a former slave who had been emancipated by his owner in 1848. He then moved to the District of Columbia, where he worked as a laborer and eventually purchased property. In 1859, Dalton brought suit against the United States for damages due to an alleged breach of contract between himself and the government. The case went before the Supreme Court which ultimately ruled that since slavery was illegal in Washington D.C., any contracts made with slaves were void and could not be enforced by law or collected upon as damages from either party involved in such agreements. This decision set precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances, establishing that no legal action can be taken on behalf of those formerly enslaved persons whose rights have been violated under unconstitutional laws or practices prior to emancipation.

In the case of Henry Dalton v. The United States, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the appellant had been denied due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. He argued that since there was no evidence presented at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dalton had committed any crime, his conviction should be overturned and he should be released from custody. Furthermore, Grier contended that it was not enough for prosecutors to simply present circumstantial evidence; they must also provide direct proof of guilt before someone can be convicted and punished by imprisonment or other means. In conclusion, Grier believed that if this principle were not upheld then individuals would have little protection against arbitrary prosecution and punishment without cause or justification.