In this case, the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York (plaintiffs) brought a suit against Franklin Ransom and Uzziah Wenman (defendants). The plaintiffs argued that they had been granted exclusive rights to operate ferries between Manhattan Island and Brooklyn by an act passed in 1813. They claimed that defendants were operating their own ferry service without permission from the city government. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants on grounds that there was no evidence presented to prove that plaintiff’s charter gave them exclusive right to operate ferries between these two locations. Furthermore, it was determined that since plaintiff's charter did not explicitly state such exclusivity, then any other person or entity could legally provide similar services as long as they followed all applicable laws. This ruling established a precedent for future cases involving public transportation services within cities or states where charters do not explicitly grant exclusive rights for certain operations.

In this case, 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 statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were unenforceable and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim. However, Justice Catron dissented from this decision on the grounds that there was no evidence of fraud or bad faith by either party involved in making the contract. He argued that since both parties acted with good intentions and without any knowledge of violating a law, they should not be punished for their actions. Furthermore, he stated that enforcing such contracts would actually benefit society as it would encourage people to enter into agreements which may ultimately lead to economic growth and development. Therefore, Justice Catron concluded that even though these types of contracts violated existing statutes they should still be enforceable under certain circumstances