John Doe, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Alonzo Mahana to the Supreme Court. The dispute was over an alleged breach of contract between the two parties. John Doe argued that he had entered into a contract with Mahana for him to perform certain services and that Mahana had failed to fulfill his obligations under the agreement. The court found in favor of John Doe and held that there was indeed a valid contract between them which had been breached by Mahana's failure to perform as promised. Furthermore, it ruled that damages should be awarded accordingly for any losses suffered due to this breach of contract. This ruling established important precedent regarding contracts and their enforcement through legal action when one party fails to uphold their end of an agreement.

John Doe, plaintiff in error, argued that the court of appeals erred when it held that he was not entitled to recover damages from Alonzo Mahana for an alleged breach of contract. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the decision of the lower court. In its opinion, Justice Grier wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that there were sufficient facts presented by John Doe to establish a valid contract between him and Mahana. He noted that while some evidence may have been circumstantial or inconclusive, it still established enough facts to support his claim against Mahana for breach of contract. Furthermore, Justice Grier argued that if any doubt existed as to whether a valid agreement had been made between them then this should be decided by a jury rather than by the courts on summary judgment. Ultimately, Justice Grier concluded his dissent with an argument in favor of allowing John Doe's case to proceed so he could present all relevant evidence before having his claims dismissed without trial or consideration from a jury.