In the case of William Judson v. William W. Corcoran, Judson appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court ruled in favor of Corcoran on an action for debt and damages. The dispute arose from a contract between the two parties that was made when they were both living in Washington D.C., but which was breached by Corcoran while he lived in Virginia. In his appeal, Judson argued that because it had been agreed upon at the time of making their contract that any disputes would be settled under District law, then even though Corcoran had moved away from D.C., he should still have to abide by this agreement and face suit there instead of Virginia where he now resided; however, this argument failed as it was determined that since no specific provision existed within their contract regarding jurisdiction or venue selection then such matters could not be enforced against either party without violating due process rights granted under Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 (the Full Faith & Credit clause) of the U.S Constitution . As such, judgment went to Corcoran and Judson's appeal was denied by unanimous decision from all nine justices present at trial

In the case of William Judson v. William W. Corcoran, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have dismissed Judson's suit against Corcoran for breach of contract. He noted that although there was no written agreement between the parties, it was clear from their conduct and correspondence that they had entered into an oral agreement to transfer certain shares of stock at a specific price. Furthermore, Grier argued that even if there were ambiguities or uncertainties in this arrangement, these issues could be resolved by allowing evidence to be presented during trial so as to determine what terms were actually agreed upon by both parties. Ultimately, Grier concluded his dissent by stating that since sufficient facts existed for a jury trial on this matter, it should not have been dismissed without such proceedings taking place first and thus he would reverse the decision made below and remand back with instructions accordingly.