Charles Kock, the plaintiff in error, brought a case against Louis Emmerling. The dispute was over an unpaid debt of $1,000 that Kock had loaned to Emmerling. In order to secure repayment of the debt, Kock took possession of certain property belonging to Emmerling and held it as collateral until he received payment from him. When no payment was made by the due date specified in their agreement, Kock sold off some of the property for $400 and used this money towards his own expenses instead of applying it towards repaying his loan from Emmerling. As such, when he sued for recovery on his claim against Emmerling's estate after his death (Emmerling having died before any payments were made), there remained an outstanding balance still owed by him which amounted to $600 plus interest accrued since then. The court ruled in favor of Charles Kock with respect to recovering this amount from Louis' estate; however they also found that because Charles had not applied all proceeds obtained through selling off some items owned by Louis towards paying back what was owed on the original loan amount but rather kept them for himself - thereby committing conversion - he could only recover up to half ($300) plus interest accrued since then instead of full damages sought initially ($600).

In the case of Charles Kock v. Louis Emmerling, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing state statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were void and unenforceable, but Justice Grier dissented from this ruling. He argued that while it may have been illegal for the parties to enter into their agreement, they should still be allowed to enforce its terms as long as no one else has suffered any harm or loss due to their actions. Furthermore, he argued that allowing these contracts would encourage people to abide by laws since they would know there is a chance their agreements will still be upheld even if they break them in order to make them. Finally, he noted that denying enforcement of these types of contracts could lead individuals down a slippery slope where all sorts of other agreements might also become invalidated simply because some law was broken during its formation process - something which would ultimately undermine public confidence in our legal system and create more chaos than good.