John J. Orton, appellant, brought a case against George Smith in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute arose out of an agreement between Orton and Smith for the sale of certain real estate located in New York State. According to their contract, Smith was obligated to pay $2,000 for the property but failed to do so after taking possession. As such, Orton sought damages from Smith for breach of contract as well as specific performance or return of title and possession back to him. In its decision on this matter, the court held that while it could not grant specific performance due to lack of jurisdiction over land titles within New York State's borders; however it did find that damages were appropriate given that there had been a clear breach by Smith under their agreement which resulted in financial loss suffered by Orton who should be compensated accordingly.

In the case of John J. Orton v. George Smith, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff should have been granted relief from his contract with the defendant. The majority had held that because there was no fraud or mistake on either side, and both parties were competent to enter into a contract, it could not be set aside by equity courts even if one party was disadvantaged by its terms. However, Justice McLean disagreed and stated that while contracts are generally binding upon all parties involved regardless of their fairness or lack thereof, this particular agreement between Mr. Orton and Mr. Smith was so grossly unfair as to warrant equitable relief for Mr. Orton due to his extreme disadvantageous position under its terms; thus making it an exception to general rules regarding contractual obligations being upheld without regard for their content or consequences for either party involved in them