John H. Howard brought a case against Stephen M. Ingersoll to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that he had been wrongfully evicted from his home in New York City by Ingersoll and his agents. Howard argued that he was entitled to remain on the property as long as he paid rent, but Ingersoll claimed that there was no written agreement between them and thus no obligation for him to allow Howard to stay on the premises. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Ingersoll, ruling that since there was no written contract or lease between them, it could not be enforced under law and therefore did not entitle Howard any right of possession over the property in question. This decision established an important precedent regarding oral contracts; while they are legally binding if certain conditions are met (such as consideration), they cannot be used to establish rights of possession unless they have been reduced into writing first.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between John H. Howard and Stephen M. Ingersoll had been breached by Ingersoll. The majority opinion held that there had not been a breach of contract because the terms of the agreement were too vague for any court to enforce them. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that it was possible for courts to interpret contracts with ambiguous language; secondly, he contended that even if some parts of the agreement could not be enforced due to vagueness or uncertainty in their meaning, other sections should still be upheld as valid and binding upon both parties. As such, Justice McLean concluded that Ingersoll did indeed breach his contractual obligations towards Howard and thus should have been found liable for damages accordingly.