This Supreme Court case involved three plaintiffs in error, Josiah Siddons Griffith, James S. Chew and Mary E. Chew (his wife), who were suing John B. Bogert, Abraham Myer and Thaddeus Smith for a breach of contract related to the sale of real estate located in New York City. The dispute arose when the defendants refused to accept payment from the plaintiffs as part of an agreement that had been made between them regarding this property transaction. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants on grounds that they had not violated any terms or conditions set forth by either party during negotiations prior to entering into their contract with each other; thus, no legal action could be taken against them for failing to comply with its provisions since it was determined that there was no breach on their part at all.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced. The plaintiffs argued that they had entered into an agreement with the defendants in which they would receive payment for certain land and improvements made on it. However, the defendants claimed that there was no valid contract because of a lack of consideration or mutuality of obligation. The majority opinion held that there was indeed a valid contract and ordered the defendants to pay what they owed under its terms. In dissent, Justice Catron argued that while there may have been some form of agreement between the parties, it did not constitute an enforceable contract due to insufficient consideration and mutuality of obligation. He further noted that even if one party had received something from another as part of their bargain, such benefit must be substantial enough to create legal obligations on both sides in order for any contractual arrangement to exist.