Daniel L. Grove, the appellant in this case, brought a suit against John McP. Brien, Robert Gilmor, William Fowle and George D. Fowle of the firm of William Fowle & Sons for breach of contract and fraud related to a sale agreement between them. The dispute arose from an alleged verbal agreement between Grove and the defendants that he would purchase certain goods from their store at a discounted rate if he paid cash on delivery; however when payment was made upon delivery as agreed upon by both parties it was refused by the defendants who then demanded full price for said goods instead. In response to this action taken by the defendants Grove filed his complaint with court seeking damages due to breach of contract as well as punitive damages based on allegations that they had acted in bad faith towards him during negotiations leading up to signing off on their original agreement which resulted in him being defrauded out of money owed under terms set forth therein. Ultimately after much deliberation over evidence presented before it, Supreme Court ruled in favor or plaintiff awarding him compensatory damages plus interest along with costs associated with bringing suit against defendant's business entity

In the dissenting opinion of Daniel L. Grove v John McP. Brien, Robert Gilmor, William Fowle, William H. Fowle and George D. Fowle trading under the firm of William Fowle & Sons, Justice Catron argued that a contract between Grove and the defendants was formed when they agreed to pay him for his services in building a steamboat engine as well as other parts for their vessel; however he also noted that this agreement did not include any specific terms or conditions regarding payment or delivery dates which would have been necessary to make it legally binding on both parties involved in the transaction. He further stated that since there was no evidence presented by either party proving an enforceable contract existed between them at any point during their dealings with each other then neither side could be held liable for breach of said agreement nor should damages be awarded to either party based upon its alleged existence alone without additional proof being provided first showing such an arrangement had indeed been made prior to work beginning on said project.