Albert H. Guild and John F. Lightner, partners in trade under the firm of Guild and Lightner, as well as Henry Hugg and Robert G. Hanna, partners in trade under the style and firm of Henry Hugg & Co., brought a case to the Supreme Court against Joseph Frontin. The plaintiffs argued that they had purchased goods from Frontin on credit with an agreement for payment at a later date; however, when it came time to pay their debt, Frontin refused to accept payment due to his belief that he was entitled to more money than what was agreed upon initially. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs by stating that if there is no dispute between parties regarding terms or conditions set forth during an initial contract then those terms must be honored regardless of any changes made after its formation.

In this case, Albert H. Guild and John F. Lightner (Guild & Lightner) and Henry Hugg and Robert G. Hanna (Henry Hugg & Co.) brought a suit against Joseph Frontin for damages resulting from the sale of goods that were not as represented by Frontin in their contract with him. The majority opinion found that there was no evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claim of fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of Frontin, thus ruling in his favor; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision arguing that although there was no direct proof of fraud or deceit on part of Frontin, circumstantial evidence should be taken into consideration when determining whether or not he had acted negligently in fulfilling his contractual obligations to the plaintiffs. He argued further that if it could be proven through such circumstantial evidence that negligence had occurred then an action for damages would lie against him regardless if any fraudulent intent could be established beyond reasonable doubt.