In Joseph Grant and Others v. E. and H. Raymond, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an 1831 contract between two parties for the sale of land in New York State. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to damages because their title to the property was not conveyed as promised by defendants' deed, which contained false statements about its contents and quality. The court held that although there had been some misrepresentation on behalf of defendants, it did not amount to fraud or deceit sufficient enough for them to be liable under common law principles; however, since they had made a promise regarding title transfer which was then broken due to their own negligence or mistake, they could still be held accountable through breach of contract claims brought by plaintiffs against them in equity proceedings before a court with jurisdiction over such matters. This decision established important precedent concerning liability for negligent misstatements when entering into contracts with other parties

In Joseph Grant and Others v. E. and H. Raymond, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing law prohibiting such contracts from being made. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy by contravening an existing statute; however, Justice Story dissented on this point, arguing that since no one had suffered any injury or prejudice as a result of the agreement, there was no reason why its enforcement should be denied simply because it violated a law which did not apply to them at all. He argued further that if courts were allowed to deny enforcement of contracts based solely on their illegality without regard for any actual harm caused by them then they would become "the guardians and protectors of every species of illegal conduct." In his view, enforcing such agreements would serve both justice and public policy better than denying them outright due to their technical illegality alone.