John Hortman brought a case against John Henshaw, William Ward, and Joseph W. Ward (collectively known as "Henshaw, Ward & Co.") in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute centered around an unpaid debt that was allegedly owed to Hortman by Henshaw, Ward & Co., which had been incurred through goods purchased from them for his business. In order to settle this debt with interest accrued over time, Hortman requested payment from Henshaw et al., but they refused on the grounds that he had not provided sufficient evidence of their obligation to him. As such, Hortman filed suit against them in order to receive compensation for what he believed was rightfully due him under contract law principles. After hearing arguments from both sides and considering relevant legal precedent regarding contracts and debts between parties, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Henshaw et al., finding that there was insufficient proof presented by Hortman that would have obligated them to pay any amount beyond what they already offered him as settlement for his claim.

In the case of John Hortsman v. John Henshaw, William Ward, and Joseph W. Ward, Merchants and Copartners doing business under the firm and style of Henshaw, Ward & Co., Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process as required by law. He believed that there was no evidence to support the jury's verdict against him because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of state law rather than facts presented at trial. Furthermore, he argued that even if there had been sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict against Mr. Hortsman for breach of contract with his creditors (the defendants), then they should have received damages instead of being awarded full payment from him as per their agreement with him prior to any legal proceedings taking place between them; this would be more consistent with established principles regarding contracts in such cases according to Justice McLean’s opinion. In conclusion, Justice McLean felt strongly that Mr. Hortman did not receive fair treatment during his trial or its outcome and thus deserved another chance at justice through a new hearing before different judges who could interpret state laws correctly without bias towards either party involved in this dispute over debt repayment obligations