In the case of Claudius F. Le Grand vs. Nicholas Darnall, Le Grand appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court ruled in favor of Darnall regarding a debt dispute between them. The dispute centered around whether or not an agreement had been made between the two parties that would have allowed for payment of the debt over time rather than all at once as was originally agreed upon by both parties when they entered into their contract. In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that there was no evidence presented to prove such an agreement existed and thus affirmed the decision from below which required full payment be made immediately according to terms set out in their original contract.

In the case of Claudius F. Le Grand vs. Nicholas Darnall, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court in favor of Darnall. He believed that there was sufficient evidence presented by Le Grand to prove his claim and thus should have been granted relief from this court instead. In particular, he noted that Le Grand had provided proof of an agreement between himself and Darnall which included payment for goods sold as well as interest on those payments; however, despite this evidence being uncontradicted by any other testimony or documents submitted during trial, it was still not considered valid enough to grant him relief from this court due to its lack of formalities such as writing or sealing requirements under Maryland law at the time. As such, Justice Story concluded that while these formalities may be necessary in some cases they are not always required when clear proof is present and therefore should not be used here as a basis for denying justice where it is clearly deserved based on all available facts before them.