John G. Graham brought a case against Alexander Bayne to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an agreement between them that stated if Graham paid Bayne $1,000 he would receive title to certain real estate in Washington D.C., but if he failed to pay then his deposit would be forfeited and returned back to him with interest. After paying the money, it was discovered that there were prior liens on the property which made it impossible for Graham to obtain clear title as promised by Bayne so he sued for breach of contract and sought damages from him instead of returning his payment plus interest as agreed upon in their contract. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Graham finding that even though there were prior liens on the property at issue, this did not excuse or absolve Bayne from fulfilling his obligations under their agreement since they had no knowledge about these liens when entering into their contractual arrangement; thus making him liable for any losses suffered by Graham due to this breach of contract and awarding him damages accordingly.

In the dissenting opinion of John G. Graham v. Alexander Bayne, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff had not proven his case and should have been granted a new trial on appeal. He believed that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of negligence against the defendant, but it was improperly excluded from consideration by the court below due to procedural errors in how it was presented. Furthermore, he noted that even if some of this evidence could be considered circumstantial or hearsay, its exclusion still constituted an error as such testimony is often admissible under certain circumstances when relevant facts are at issue in a case. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded that since these errors were prejudicial to both parties and denied them their right to present all available evidence before judgment could be rendered; they should have been given another opportunity for justice through a retrial on appeal instead of having their claims dismissed outright without further consideration