In the case of Samuel D. Harris vs James Dennie, Harris was suing for damages due to a breach of contract on behalf of Dennie. The original agreement between the two parties stated that if Harris provided materials and labor to build a house for Dennie, then he would be paid $500 upon completion. However, when the house was finished in 1827, only $200 had been paid out by Dennie with no further payments made despite repeated requests from Harris. As such, he brought his claim before court seeking compensation for the remaining balance plus interest accrued since its due date as well as additional costs associated with bringing this suit forward. Ultimately it was ruled in favor of Harris who received an award amounting to over double what he originally sought after including attorney fees and other related expenses incurred during litigation proceedings.

In the case of Samuel D. Harris vs James Dennie, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Supreme Court should not have granted certiorari to hear this case because it did not involve any federal question or arise under any act of Congress. He further noted that there was no dispute between the parties as to whether or not they had entered into an agreement and thus, there was nothing for the court to decide on appeal. Furthermore, Justice Story stated that if either party felt aggrieved by their contract then they could seek relief from state courts instead of appealing directly to the Supreme Court. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that since this case did not present any issue involving federal law and both parties were content with their contractual arrangement, it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in order for them to review it.