Hyde and Gleises, and H. Lockett were the plaintiffs in error while Booraem and Company were the defendants in error. The case revolved around a dispute between two parties over an unpaid debt of $1,000 that was due to Hyde & Co., which had been assigned by them to Lockett. It was alleged that Booraem & Co., who had received goods from Hyde & Co., refused to pay for them until they received payment from another party with whom they had contracted business dealings. In response, Lockett filed suit against Booraem & Co., claiming damages for their refusal to pay him the money owed on account of his assignment from Hyde & Co.. After trial proceedings took place at both state court levels, it eventually reached the Supreme Court where justices determined that there was no legal basis upon which Lockett could recover damages as he did not have any direct contract with Booraem or Company nor any right under law or equity arising out of such contract; therefore his claim failed as a matter of law.

In the case of Hyde and Gleises, and H. Lockett v. Booraem and Company, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written if it is not contrary to public policy or illegal in nature. The majority opinion held that since one party had made an offer which was accepted by another party without any additional conditions being added, then the terms of the agreement could not be altered after acceptance even if both parties agreed to do so later on. However, Justice Baldwin argued that this would lead to unjust results because it would prevent either side from making changes when circumstances changed or when they realized their mistake in agreeing to certain terms initially. He believed that contracts should remain flexible enough for both sides to make reasonable modifications whenever necessary while still protecting each other’s interests under law.