In the case of Fitz Henry Homer v. George L. Brow, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not received full payment for their services as agreed upon in the contract. The plaintiff, Homer, had contracted with Brow to provide him with certain services and goods in exchange for money; however, after providing all that he had promised under the agreement, Homer did not receive full payment from Brow as they had previously agreed upon. As such, Homer brought suit against Brow seeking compensation for his unpaid wages and damages due to breach of contract. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Homer by finding that contracts must be honored even if only partial payments have been made or received at any given time during performance of said agreements unless otherwise specified within them.

In the case of Fitz Henry Homer v. George L. Brow, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a deed from an infant plaintiff to defendant was valid and enforceable under New York law. The majority opinion held that it could not be enforced because infants are incapable of making contracts or conveyances, but Justice Grier dissented on this point. He argued that although infants may generally lack capacity to make binding contracts, they can still enter into agreements with adults if those agreements are beneficial for them and do not involve any fraud or undue influence by the adult party involved in the transaction. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were no allegations of fraud or duress in this particular case; thus, he concluded that since both parties had acted in good faith and without coercion, then their agreement should be upheld as valid and enforceable according to New York law.