This case was a dispute between two individuals, Martin and Mott. Martin had hired Mott to transport goods from one place to another, but the goods were never delivered. As such, Martin sued for breach of contract in order to recover damages for his loss. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that since there was no written agreement between the parties regarding payment or delivery of the goods, it could not be established that any contractual obligation existed between them. Furthermore, even if an oral agreement did exist at some point prior to the suit being filed by Martin against Mott, it would have been impossible for him to prove its existence as verbal contracts are generally unenforceable under law due to lack of evidence. Therefore, despite having suffered a financial loss due to non-delivery of his goods by Mott’s negligence or intentional act (which he could not prove), Martin failed in his attempt at recovering damages from him through this lawsuit as he lacked sufficient proof of their contractual relationship and thus lost out on legal recourse available otherwise through court proceedings

In the case of Martin v. Mott, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He believed that the plaintiff had established his right to recover damages from the defendant for trespass on his land, as well as for taking away timber without permission or payment. Furthermore, he noted that it was not necessary for him to prove an actual injury resulting from such actions; rather, it should have been sufficient proof of damage if there were any reasonable grounds upon which one might infer an injury would result from them. In conclusion, Justice Story maintained that since no evidence had been presented by either party regarding whether or not any actual harm resulted from these acts of trespass and conversion (taking away), then judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiff with nominal damages only.