In the case of Timothy Fanning v. Charles Gregoire and Charles Bogg, appellant Fanning brought suit against appellees Gregoire and Bogg for damages resulting from a breach of contract. The lower court found in favor of the defendants, ruling that there was no evidence to support Fanning's claim that he had been promised payment by either defendant for his services as an agent on their behalf. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded it back to the lower court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Fanning based on its finding that sufficient evidence existed showing an agreement between all parties involved whereby they were obligated to pay him for his services rendered. This ruling established precedent which has since been used in similar cases involving contracts where one party is seeking compensation from another due to a breach or non-performance thereof.

In this case, Timothy Fanning appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court ruled against him in his suit against Charles Gregoire and Charles Bogg. The dispute arose from an agreement between Fanning and Gregoire for the sale of certain land. According to Fanning, he had paid all that was due under the contract but Gregoire refused to convey title as promised. In response, Fanning sued both men for damages resulting from their breach of contract. However, the lower court found in favor of Gregoire and Bogg on grounds that they were not parties to any written agreement with Fanning regarding ownership or transfer of title; thus there was no legal basis upon which they could be held liable for breach of contract. Justice McLean dissented from this opinion arguing that even though there may have been no formal writing memorializing their understanding between them at issue here is one involving real estate; therefore it should be subject to more stringent requirements than those applicable when dealing with personal property alone since such transactions are often difficult if not impossible to prove without some form of written documentation attesting thereto. He further argued that while it may be true neither party signed anything related specifically to this transaction, other evidence presented by both sides indicated a clear intent on behalf of each man involved indicating mutual assent sufficient enough establish legally binding obligations between them regardless whether or not these obligations were ever reduced into writing