Charles Emerson, the plaintiff in error, brought a case against Horatio N. Slater to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an agreement between them that stated Emerson would pay $1,000 for certain real estate owned by Slater and located in Massachusetts. However, when it came time to make payment on the property, Emerson refused to do so claiming he had been misled as to its value and condition at the time of purchase. He argued that because he had not received what was promised him under their contract terms his obligation should be voided or reduced accordingly. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Slater stating that while there may have been some misrepresentation made about certain aspects of the property’s condition this did not excuse Emerson from fulfilling his contractual obligations as agreed upon initially with no changes being allowed after signing unless both parties mutually agreed otherwise beforehand.

In the case of Charles Emerson v. Horatio N. Slater, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and that any rights acquired under them would have to be relinquished by both parties involved. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Grier argued that while it is true that contracts made in violation of state laws are voidable at the option of either party, they should still remain valid until one or both sides choose to exercise their right to rescind them. He further stated that allowing these agreements to stand despite being illegal does not encourage people to break laws but rather allows for more flexibility when dealing with contractual disputes and encourages individuals who may have unknowingly violated a statute without malicious intent from suffering undue hardship as a result.