In Montgomery v. Hernandez and Others, the Supreme Court considered a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiff in error, Montgomery, had entered into a contract with the defendants in error to purchase land from them for $3,000. After paying part of the sum due under the agreement but before completing payment on it, he discovered that some of his title documents were defective and sought to rescind or modify their agreement as a result. The defendants refused to do so and brought suit against him for non-payment while also attempting to recover possession of the property through replevin proceedings. In its decision, the court held that although there was no express provision in their original contract allowing either party to rescind or alter it upon discovery of any defect in title documents after partial performance had been made by one side or another; nevertheless such rescission could be implied from all circumstances surrounding this particular transaction given its unique facts and circumstances at issue here.. Ultimately they found that both sides should be restored back into status quo ante bellum (the state existing prior) which meant returning both money paid by Montgomery as well as restoring possession over said land back unto him without further obligation on his part towards completion thereof

In Montgomery v. Hernandez, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a slave who had been taken from Virginia and brought into Louisiana could be held as property in that state. The majority of justices found that slavery was not recognized by the laws of Louisiana and therefore the plaintiff's claim for ownership over his former slave must fail. However, Justice Story dissented from this opinion on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under natural law slaves were considered property regardless of local laws; secondly, he maintained that even if it were true that slavery did not exist in Louisiana at common law then Congress had still authorized its introduction through various statutes passed prior to 1820 when Louisiana became a state. He concluded by stating his belief that since these statutes remained valid after 1820 they should be applied retroactively so as to allow for the recognition of slavery within Louisiana's borders.