George W. Parks was the plaintiff in error in this case, which involved a dispute between him and Sumpter Turner and Henry Renshaw, trading under the commercial firm of Turner & Renshaw. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not an agreement made by Parks to pay for goods purchased from Turner & Renshaw had been breached when he failed to make payment within two months as agreed upon. The court found that there were sufficient facts presented to show that both parties intended for payment to be made within two months of delivery, thus making it a binding contract between them. Furthermore, since no evidence was provided showing any other terms or conditions attached to the agreement besides those stated on its face, they held that Parks' failure constituted a breach of contract and ordered him liable for damages accordingly.

In the dissenting opinion of George W. Parks v. Sumpter Turner and Henry Renshaw, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff should have been allowed to recover damages for his losses due to a breach of contract between him and Turner & Renshaw. He believed that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove any actual damage in order to be entitled to compensation, as he had already proven that there was an agreement between himself and Turner & Renshaw which they failed to fulfill. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued that even if no specific amount of damages could be determined by a jury or court, then nominal damages should still be awarded in recognition of the wrong done against him by Turner & Renshaw's failure to honor their contractual obligations.