Hugh Maxwell brought a case against Nathaniel L. Griswold, George Griswold, George W. Gray and George Griswold Junior in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an agreement between Hugh Maxwell and Nathaniel L. Griswold to purchase certain real estate located in Ohio from two other parties, who were not named as defendants in this case. According to the agreement, Hugh Maxwell would pay $1,000 for the property with half of that amount being paid by Nathaniel L. Griswold and his co-defendants at closing time while Hugh Maxwell would be responsible for paying off any remaining balance due on said property within one year after its purchase date or else he would forfeit all rights to it along with any money already paid towards it up until that point; however if he did make full payment then title to said land was supposed to pass into his name free from encumbrances created by either party prior thereto or thereafter during such period of time when payments were still being made on said land’s purchase price balance due thereon according unto terms set forth hereinabove mentioned before hand beforehand aforesaid heretofore stated previously above written out thereinbefore declared hereby provided now given so established thusly agreed upon betwext both parties involved herein together jointly partaking thereof mutually consenting thereto respectively agreeing thereby whereupon accordingly therefore consequently henceforth forevermore amen

In the case of Hugh Maxwell v. Nathaniel L. Griswold, George Griswold, George W. Gray and George Griswold Junior, Justice Daniel delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have granted relief to plaintiff on his bill for specific performance of an agreement made between him and defendants concerning certain real estate located in New York City. He believed that there was sufficient evidence presented by plaintiff to prove that he had entered into a valid contract with defendants regarding said property and thus deserved relief from the court as requested in his bill for specific performance. Furthermore, Justice Daniel stated that even if it could be proved beyond doubt that no such contract existed between parties then still plaintiff would be entitled to some form of equitable relief due to unjust enrichment suffered at hands of defendant's who had benefited from improvements made upon said property by plaintiff without any compensation or recompense being provided theretofore or thereafter by them whatsoever.