In Thacker B. Howard v. Francis Bugbee, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an appeal from a decision by the Circuit Court for Washington County in Maryland. The plaintiff, Thacker B. Howard, had brought suit against Francis Bugbee to recover damages for trespass on his land and destruction of property caused by cattle owned by Bugbee that were allowed to graze on Howard's land without permission or compensation. The Circuit Court found in favor of Bugbee and dismissed the complaint with costs; however, upon appeal to the Supreme Court it was determined that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial which showed that damage had been done to Howard's property as a result of negligence on behalf of Bugbee and his agents who managed his cattle herd - thus reversing the judgment below and remanding back with instructions for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.

In Thacker B. Howard v. Francis Bugbee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated state law and thus was voidable by either party at any time before performance began. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision on the grounds that contracts are generally enforceable unless they violate some public policy or moral principle, which he did not believe this particular contract did. He argued that since there were no clear legal prohibitions against such contracts being made in violation of state laws, then those laws should not prevent them from being enforced when both parties have agreed to their terms and conditions without fraud or coercion involved. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing such contracts would help promote commerce and economic stability within states by providing greater certainty for businesses entering into agreements with one another despite potential conflicts with local regulations or statutes