David D. Mitchell, plaintiff in error, brought a case against Manuel X. Harmony to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an alleged breach of contract between them concerning a shipment of goods from New Orleans to Mobile Bay in Alabama. Mitchell claimed that he had agreed with Harmony to transport certain merchandise and receive payment for it upon delivery; however, when he arrived at his destination, no payment was made and instead Harmon refused to pay him anything for his services rendered. In response, Mitchell sued Harmon for damages due under their agreement but lost in both lower courts before appealing to the Supreme Court where they ultimately ruled in favor of Harmon on grounds that there were insufficient facts presented by either party as evidence regarding any such contract or agreement between them which could be enforced legally according to law. This decision set a precedent that contracts must be proven through sufficient evidence if they are going to be upheld by court rulings moving forward into future cases involving similar disputes over agreements not being honored or fulfilled properly

In the case of David D. Mitchell v Manuel X. Harmony, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for his losses due to the defendant's breach of contract. The majority had held that since there was no consideration given by either party at the time of contracting, and because it did not appear from any evidence presented that they were both competent parties capable of entering into such an agreement, then no valid contract existed between them and therefore neither could be held liable for its breach. However, Justice McLean disagreed with this conclusion as he believed that if one party had performed their part under a contract while expecting something in return from another who failed to perform theirs then they should still be able to recover damages even without consideration being present at formation or proof of competency on behalf of both parties. He further stated that when two persons enter into an agreement voluntarily and with mutual understanding regarding its terms then it is binding upon them regardless whether or not there is consideration involved or any other formality observed during execution; thus making him believe recovery should have been allowed here despite what the majority decided otherwise.