In Ex Parte Martha Bradstreet, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving James Jackson ex dem. Martha Bradstreet and Daniel Thomas. The dispute arose when Jackson sued Thomas for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract between them. At issue was whether or not there was sufficient evidence to prove that a valid contract existed between the two parties at all. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court determined that while there may have been some kind of agreement in place, it did not meet all legal requirements necessary to be considered legally binding under common law principles and therefore could not be enforced by either party against each other in court proceedings. As such, they dismissed Jackson's claim without prejudice and ordered him to pay costs associated with bringing suit against Thomas as well as any additional fees incurred during litigation process itself.

In Ex Parte Martha Bradstreet; In the Matter of James Jackson ex dem. Martha Bradstreet vs. Daniel Thomas, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have dismissed the writ of error and reversed its decision on appeal. He believed that there was sufficient evidence to support Mrs. Bradstreet's claim for damages against Mr. Thomas, and thus felt it was wrong for the court to dismiss her case without considering all of her arguments or giving her an opportunity to present them before a jury trial as she had requested. Justice Story also noted that even if some technical errors were made by Mrs. Bradstreet during proceedings, they did not necessarily warrant dismissal since such mistakes could be corrected with further hearings or other appropriate remedies instead of outright dismissal from consideration altogether without any chance at justice being served in this matter whatsoever