In this case, William T. Pease was the plaintiff in error and he was impleaded with John Chester and Tarleton Jones. The defendant in the case was William Dwight. At issue were two notes that had been given to Pease by Dwight for a debt of $1,000 each which had not been paid when due. The court found that there were no sufficient grounds to support an action against all three parties as joint obligors on both notes since they did not sign them jointly or severally nor did they agree to be bound together on either note; therefore, it held that only one of them could be liable at any time for payment of either note unless some other agreement existed between them regarding their liability on the notes. Furthermore, it determined that if more than one party is sued upon a single contract then each must pay his proportionate share according to his interest therein but none can be compelled beyond what he has agreed to pay under such contract or agreement without express authority from law or equity.

In the case of William T. Pease (impleaded with John Chester and Tarleton Jones) v. William Dwight, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The majority had ruled in favor of Dwight on the basis that he had not been given sufficient notice of an agreement made by his agent, but Justice McLean argued that this was irrelevant since it did not appear in writing or have any bearing on what was actually agreed upon between both parties. He further stated that if one party has acted under an agreement and received benefits from it, then they are bound to fulfill their obligations regardless of whether or not they were aware at the time it was entered into. Therefore, he concluded that Pease should be allowed to recover damages for breach of contract due to Dwight's failure to perform his part according to its terms