Thomas Davis, plaintiff in error, brought a case against William M. Tileston and Company for breach of contract. The dispute arose when the defendant refused to pay the plaintiff $1,000 as agreed upon in their contract. The Supreme Court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to prove that an agreement had been made between both parties and thus ordered the defendant to pay the full amount of $1,000 plus interest from the date of default until payment was received by Thomas Davis. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving contracts where one party fails to fulfill its obligations under an agreement with another party; if it can be proven that a valid contract existed between two parties then they are legally obligated to abide by its terms or face legal consequences such as paying damages or being held liable for any losses incurred due to non-performance on their part.

In Thomas Davis v. William M. Tileston and Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that included an arbitration clause could be enforced by a court of law. The majority opinion held that it could not, as such contracts were considered void under state law at the time. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there is no legal basis for denying enforcement of these contracts simply because they include an arbitration clause. He argued that if both parties had agreed to arbitrate their dispute in good faith then courts should enforce those agreements just like any other contract between two individuals or entities - regardless of what form it takes or how it is structured. Furthermore, he noted that refusing to recognize such agreements would only serve to undermine public confidence in contractual arrangements and discourage people from entering into them in the first place - something which would ultimately harm society as a whole more than anything else