Richard Drummond, the surviving partner of Charles Drummond, brought a case against the executors of George Prestman. The dispute was over an unpaid debt owed to Richard and Charles by George. In order for Richard to recover his portion of the debt he had to prove that there was an agreement between himself and George in which they both agreed that if either one died before payment could be made then their estate would pay off what remained due. The Supreme Court found in favor of Richard as it determined that such an agreement did exist based on evidence presented at trial including testimony from witnesses who were familiar with all parties involved. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving similar disputes where verbal agreements are present but not written down or recorded in any way.

In Richard Drummond, Surviving Partner of Charles Drummond v. The Executors of George Prestman, the dissenting opinion argued that the court should have allowed a jury to decide whether or not there was an implied contract between the two parties. The majority had ruled that no such contract existed and thus denied recovery for damages incurred by Mr. Drummond as a result of his reliance on what he believed were assurances from Mr. Prestman regarding their business dealings together. In dissent, it was argued that since both parties had acted in good faith and with reasonable expectations based on their prior interactions, they could be considered to have entered into an implied agreement which would entitle Mr. Drummond to recover damages for losses suffered due to breach of this agreement by Mr. Prestman's executors after his death when they refused to honor it.. Ultimately, however, the majority held firm in its decision denying recovery for any alleged breach of contract and so dismissed the case without allowing a jury trial on this issue