Wharton Jones, the plaintiff in this case, sued John Van Zandt for damages resulting from a breach of contract. The contract was made between Wharton and Van Zandt to transport goods from Philadelphia to New Orleans. According to the terms of the agreement, Wharton was responsible for providing all necessary supplies and equipment needed for transportation while Van Zandt agreed to pay him a certain amount upon delivery of the goods at their destination. However, when they arrived in New Orleans it became apparent that some items were missing or damaged due to negligence on behalf of Van Zandt's crew during transit. As such, Wharton sought compensation for his losses but was denied by lower courts who argued that he had failed to prove any actual damage caused by negligence on part of Van Zandt's crew members. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed these decisions ruling that even if no direct evidence could be provided as proof of negligence it should still be assumed since there is an implied duty placed upon carriers like those employed by John van zant which requires them take reasonable care with respect transporting goods entrusted into their charge; thus making them liable for any loss or damage incurred during transit regardless if intentional or not.

In the case of Wharton Jones v. John Van Zandt, Justice Catron delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of the law. He believed that it was not within their power to decide whether or not a contract had been made between two parties and should have instead left this determination up to a jury trial. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that there must be evidence of consideration for any agreement to be legally binding; rather, he argued that if both parties agreed upon certain terms then those terms were valid regardless of whether or not they provided mutual benefit. Ultimately, Justice Catron concluded by stating his belief that no court has authority over contracts unless fraud is involved and thus urged reversal of the judgment against Jones due to lack of sufficient proof regarding its validity.