This case was brought before the United States Supreme Court by George W. Day, Bowen Matlock, Isaac H. Frothingham and George W. Warner (Plaintiffs in Error) against William A. Washburn and John A. Keith (Defendants). The Plaintiffs claimed that they had been wrongfully deprived of their property rights when Defendants took possession of a certain parcel of land without providing compensation for it as required by law; therefore, they sought damages from the Defendants for this alleged trespass on their property rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which states “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law” . After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered that Defendants pay them damages for taking possession of their land without just compensation as required by law. This ruling established an important precedent regarding protection for private citizens' constitutional right to own personal property free from government interference or seizure unless proper legal procedures are followed first including payment just compensation if necessary

In the case of George W. Day, Bowen Matlock, Isaac H. Frothingham and George W. Warner v William A. Washburn and John A. Keith, the dissenting opinion was that the court should have found in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim for damages due to a breach of contract between them and defendant Washburn & Co., as they had proven that there was an agreement between them which had been breached by said defendants when they failed to deliver goods according to its terms without any legal excuse or justification for doing so; furthermore, it was argued that even if no express agreement existed between parties at time of transaction then still plaintiff's were entitled to recover damages based upon quantum meruit (the reasonable value) since defendant did accept delivery from plaintiff's with knowledge of what services were being rendered in exchange for payment received from defendants; thus it is concluded that plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for losses suffered due to breach committed by defendants regardless whether such loss can be attributed directly or indirectly thereto .