Obadiah H. Platt brought a case against Chauncey Jerome in the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, alleging that he had been defrauded by Jerome in an 1851 contract for the sale and delivery of clocks. The contract stated that Platt was to pay $1,000 upon delivery and then $2,500 at a later date; however, when it came time to make payment on the second installment due under the terms of their agreement, Jerome refused to accept it unless Platt paid him an additional sum as compensation for his services as agent. In response to this demand from Jerome, Platt filed suit seeking damages for breach of contract and fraudulently obtaining money from him. After hearing both sides' arguments in court, the justices ruled unanimously in favor of Obadiah H. Platt finding that Chauncey Jerome had acted unlawfully by attempting to extort more money than what was agreed upon between them originally and awarding judgment accordingly with costs assessed against him.

In the case of Obadiah H. Platt v Chauncey Jerome, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not proven his right to recover damages from the defendant for an alleged breach of contract. He stated that there was no evidence presented by either party as to what terms were agreed upon between them and therefore it could not be determined if any such agreement existed or whether it had been breached. Furthermore, even if an agreement did exist, Taney contended that since both parties were merchants dealing with each other on equal footing they should have known better than to rely solely on verbal promises without having written documentation of their arrangement. As such, he concluded that judgment should be entered in favor of the defendant due to insufficient proof provided by the plaintiff.