This Supreme Court case involved Benjamin F. Morgan, the plaintiff in error, and Alfred G. Curtenius and John L. Griswold, defendants in error. The dispute arose from a contract between Morgan and Curtenius for the sale of certain real estate located in New York City. According to the terms of their agreement, Morgan was to pay $10,000 for the property with an additional payment due at a later date if he chose to keep it beyond that time period; however, when this second payment became due no money had been paid by either party as agreed upon under their contract. As such, Curtenius brought suit against Morgan seeking damages for breach of contract while also naming Griswold as a defendant since he had taken possession of part of the land during this same time frame without paying any compensation or rent whatsoever despite being aware that there was an existing contractual arrangement between himself and Curtisnus regarding its use or occupancy rights over said property . After hearing both sides’ arguments on appeal ,the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Curtisnus finding that not only did his original claim have merit but also awarding him full damages plus interest from Griswold based on his wrongful occupation/use thereof which violated their prior agreement .

In the case of Benjamin F. Morgan v Alfred G. Curtinius and John L. Griswold, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process under the law as it was applied by the lower court's decision. He noted that there were several errors in how this case was handled, including an incorrect interpretation of certain statutes and a failure to consider evidence presented by both parties during trial proceedings. Furthermore, he argued that even if all other issues had been correctly addressed, there still would have been sufficient grounds for reversing or modifying the judgment against Morgan because his rights were violated when he was denied access to witnesses who could provide testimony on his behalf at trial. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded that justice had not been served in this particular instance and urged for further review of this matter so as to ensure fairness for all involved parties going forward