In Benjamin J. Knapp v Edmund Banks, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiff in error, Benjamin J. Knapp, had entered into a contract with defendant Edmund Banks to purchase certain goods and services from him for $1,000. After paying part of this sum upfront as agreed upon by both parties, Knapp refused to pay the remaining balance due on account that he believed Banks had failed to fulfill his end of the bargain by not providing all that was promised in their agreement. In response to this claim made by Knapp against him, Banks brought suit against him for non-payment and sought damages in court which were awarded in favor of himself at trial level but reversed on appeal before reaching the Supreme Court where it was ultimately decided that since there was no evidence presented proving any fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of either party during negotiations leading up to their contractual agreement nor any proof showing failure on behalf Bank’s part regarding delivery or quality standards set forth therein; therefore judgment should be rendered for Plaintiff (Knapp) as he did not owe anything further under said contract according its terms and conditions established at time signing thereof

In the case of Benjamin J. Knapp v Edmund Banks, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process of law. He noted that although the defendant was entitled to an appeal from a judgment rendered against him by default, it was necessary for him to have notice of such an appeal before any proceedings could be taken on his behalf. The court below had failed to give this notice and thus deprived the defendant of his right to defend himself in court. Furthermore, Justice McLean contended that even if there were sufficient evidence presented at trial, it would still be improper for a judgment by default to stand without proper notification being provided beforehand as required by law. In conclusion, he stated that justice should always prevail over technicalities and urged reversal of the lower court's decision so as not to deny due process rights under U.S law