Isaac Hartshorn brought a case against Horace H. Day in the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that he had been wrongfully evicted from his property by Day. The dispute arose when Hartshorn purchased land in Wisconsin from one John B. Smith and took possession of it with an agreement to pay for it over time. However, before Hartshorn could make full payment on the land, Smith sold it to Day without informing him or giving him any notice of such sale. As a result, Day was able to evict Hartshorn from his property without warning or compensation for improvements made on the land while under his ownership. In its ruling, the court held that since there was no evidence presented showing that either party knew about this double sale at the time they entered into their respective agreements with each other; both parties were entitled to rely upon their own contracts as valid and binding between them alone until such knowledge became known or should have become known through due diligence by either party involved in this transaction

In the case of Isaac Hartshorn v. Horace H. Day, Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the lower court had erred in its decision to grant summary judgment for the defendant on the basis of an alleged lack of consideration for a contract between them. He noted that there was evidence presented by both parties indicating that some form of consideration had been given and accepted, and thus it should have been left up to a jury to decide whether or not this constituted sufficient legal consideration under New York law. Furthermore, Justice Curtis stated that even if no actual monetary value could be attributed to what was exchanged between them, courts must still recognize certain forms of non-monetary considerations as valid when they are part of an agreement made in good faith by two competent parties who intend their actions to create binding obligations upon each other.