In the case of Daniel Poorman and Others v. William A. Woodward and William C. Dusenberry, late partners under the firm of Woodward & Dusenberry, a dispute arose over an agreement between two parties for the sale of goods on credit terms in 1855. The plaintiffs argued that they had purchased goods from defendants’ store on credit with an understanding that if payment was not made by a certain date then interest would be charged at 6 percent per annum until paid off in full; however, when payment was not received by said date, defendants refused to accept it without charging additional interest beyond what was agreed upon initially. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs stating that since there were no other conditions specified within their contract regarding any changes or modifications to their initial agreement then defendants could not legally charge more than what had been previously agreed upon as this would constitute a breach of contract due to lack of consideration given for such modification or change being made unilaterally by one party only without mutual consent from both parties involved.

In the case of Daniel Poorman and Others v. William A. Woodward and William C. Dusenberry, late partners under the firm of Woodward & Dusenberry, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted an injunction against Poorman's creditors to prevent them from collecting on their debts until his appeal was heard by a higher court. He reasoned that such an action would be contrary to established legal principles regarding debt collection and could potentially lead to abuse if other litigants were allowed similar injunctions without good cause or sufficient proof of injury or damage being done by their creditors' actions. Furthermore, Grier noted that granting this type of injunction would set a dangerous precedent for future cases as it could open up avenues for individuals who are unable to pay their debts due to financial hardship but still wish to avoid repaying what they owe through legal means rather than simply defaulting on payments altogether.