Charles J. Gayler and Leonard Brown were plaintiffs in error who brought a case against Benjamin G. Wilder to the Supreme Court of the United States. The two men had been convicted by a jury in Massachusetts for assault with intent to murder, but they argued that their conviction was unlawful because it violated certain provisions of the state's constitution as well as some federal statutes regarding criminal procedure. In particular, they claimed that their right to be tried by an impartial jury had been denied when jurors were selected from only one county instead of several counties within the state, which would have provided them with more diverse representation on their trial panel. After considering both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Gayler and Brown; however, it did not address whether or not there was any constitutional violation involved since this issue was outside its jurisdiction at that time due to lack of precedent set forth by Congress or other courts concerning such matters.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Charles J. Gayler and Leonard Brown v. Benjamin G. Wilder was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover damages from Wilder for his alleged breach of contract, as they had failed to prove their claim with sufficient evidence at trial. The majority opinion held that a jury should have been allowed to decide whether or not there was a valid contract between the parties, but Justice McLean argued that this would be an improper use of judicial power since it could lead to arbitrary decisions based on speculation rather than facts presented in court. He further noted that even if such a contract did exist, it would still need to be proven by competent evidence before any damages could be awarded; thus, he concluded that no recovery should have been granted under these circumstances and dissented from the majority's ruling accordingly.