This Supreme Court case involved Augustine Anne Louise Denise, Hyacinth Adda Mayneaud de Paucemont, Countess de Tournon, Seraphine Carpentier (widow of Olivier Louis Martin), Charles Alexander Martin, Jane Mararie Seraphina Martin and Jaques Francois Justinian Francois and Antione Joseph Servais as plaintiffs in error against Benjamin Ruggles. The dispute was over a contract between the parties that had been executed in France. The contract stated that if certain conditions were met then the defendants would be obligated to pay money to the plaintiffs. However when it came time for payment to be made by the defendant he refused on grounds that there was no legal obligation due to a lack of consideration from both sides at execution of said agreement. Ultimately after much deliberation it was determined by the court that although there may have been some issues with consideration at execution they did not invalidate any obligations under this particular contract since all other necessary elements were present such as offer acceptance and mutual assent which are essential components for an enforceable agreement according to established law principles.

In this case, the plaintiffs in error were Augustine Anne Louise Denise, Hyacinth Adda Mayneaud de Paucemont, Countess de Tournon, Seraphine Carpentier (widow of Olivier Louis Martin), Charles Alexander Martin, Jane Mararie Seraphina Martin and Jaques Francois Justinian Francois and Antione Joseph Servais. They argued that Benjamin Ruggles had wrongfully obtained possession of a tract of land from them by fraudulently obtaining a deed to it. The Supreme Court found that although there was evidence suggesting fraudulent conduct on the part of Ruggles in acquiring title to the property at issue in this case, it was not sufficient enough for them to grant relief to the plaintiffs. In his dissenting opinion Justice Grier argued that since there was substantial evidence indicating fraud on behalf of Ruggles when he acquired title to the land at issue here then they should have granted relief for the plaintiffs as they had been wronged by him.