In the case of Pierre Menard vs. Aspasia, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties had been breached. The plaintiff, Pierre Menard, argued that he had entered into an agreement to purchase land from defendant Aspasia for $1,000 and that she had failed to deliver on her promise when she sold it instead to another party for more money. The court found in favor of Menard and held that Aspasia was liable for breach of contract due to her failure to fulfill her obligations under their agreement. Furthermore, they ruled that since the sale price offered by the third-party exceeded what was agreed upon between Menard and Aspasia in their original contract, then any profits made by either party should be shared equally among them both as compensation for damages caused by this breach of trust. This ruling established important precedent regarding contracts and property rights which still applies today across many jurisdictions throughout America.

In the case of Pierre Menard, Plaintiff in Error vs. Aspasia, Defendant in Error, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and two other justices. He argued that the court should not have granted a new trial to Menard because there was no evidence that any error had been committed by the jury or judge during his original trial. Furthermore, he believed that it was improper for the court to grant a new trial based solely on an affidavit from one witness who did not appear at either of Menard's trials and whose testimony could not be cross-examined or tested for accuracy. In conclusion, Justice Story felt that granting this motion would set a dangerous precedent which would allow parties to obtain new trials without sufficient proof of actual error occurring during their initial proceedings.