In the case of Franklin Moore, George Foot and George F. Bagley v The American Transportation Company, the plaintiffs in error argued that they had been wrongfully charged for freight on goods shipped from New York to Philadelphia. They claimed that a contract between them and the defendant stipulated that no charges were to be made until after delivery of their goods at Philadelphia. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that there was no evidence presented by either party which showed any agreement regarding payment terms or conditions other than those stated in an invoice issued by the defendant company prior to shipment. Furthermore, it was determined that under common law principles governing contracts such as this one, payment was due upon receipt of services rendered regardless if a written agreement existed or not. Therefore, since all parties agreed to abide by these terms when they accepted delivery of their goods at Philadelphia without objection or dispute over payments due then it could be inferred from this action alone that both sides had entered into an implied contract with each other concerning payment arrangements for services provided

In this case, the plaintiffs in error argued that they were entitled to a refund of freight charges paid for goods shipped by them from New York to Philadelphia. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Grier argued that under Pennsylvania law, contracts must be fair and reasonable or else they are voidable at the option of either party. He further noted that while there may have been some evidence presented as to why these particular rates were charged, it was not sufficient enough for him to conclude beyond doubt that such rates were justifiable or reasonable given all circumstances surrounding their agreement. As such, he concluded that since no proof had been offered demonstrating otherwise, it should be assumed then that the contract was invalid due to its unreasonableness and thus unenforceable against any party seeking relief from its terms.