James D'Arcy brought a case against Morris Ketchum, Thomas Rogers, and Edward Bement who were copartners trading under the name of Ketchum, Rogers and Bement. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that D’Arcy claimed he was owed by the defendants for goods sold to them. The Supreme Court found in favor of D’Arcy as it determined that there had been sufficient evidence presented to prove his claim. Furthermore, they ruled that since all three partners had signed contracts with him individually and jointly as part of their partnership agreement then each partner could be held liable for any debts incurred by the firm. This ruling set a precedent which established individual liability among partners when dealing with third parties such as creditors or customers even if only one partner has entered into an agreement on behalf of the company.

In this case, the plaintiff in error (James D'Arcy) argued that he was entitled to a judgment against Ketchum, Rogers & Bement for goods sold and delivered. The Supreme Court of New York had previously found in favor of the defendants on the grounds that they were not liable because there was no written contract between them and D’Arcy. In his dissent, Justice Catron argued that it should have been up to a jury to decide whether or not an implied contract existed between D’Arcy and Ketchum et al., as evidence suggested such an agreement may have been formed through their course of dealing with each other over time. He further noted that even if no express contract had been made by either party, under New York law at the time any verbal contracts could still be enforced so long as they were supported by sufficient proof from both sides. As such, Justice Catron concluded that it would be unjust for Ketchum et al. to escape liability without allowing a jury trial first determining whether or not an implied contract did exist between them and D’Arcy based on all available evidence presented before them.