David Randon, the plaintiff in error, brought a case against Thomas Toby. The dispute was over an alleged breach of contract between the two parties. According to Randon's claim, he had entered into a verbal agreement with Toby for certain services and labor that were to be performed by him on behalf of Toby. However, when it came time for payment from Toby for these services and labor rendered by Randon, no such payment was made as promised. As a result of this breach of contract on the part of Toby, Randon sought damages in court which would cover his losses due to not being paid what he was owed according to their initial agreement. Ultimately however after much deliberation and consideration by the Supreme Court justices presiding over this case they found that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented before them proving beyond reasonable doubt that any sort of contractual obligation existed between both parties at all; thus ruling in favor or Thomas Toby who ultimately did not have pay out anything towards David Randon as compensation for his supposed unpaid services or labor provided

In the case of David Randon v. Thomas Toby, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not subject to interpretation by courts. The majority opinion held that when a contract is ambiguous or uncertain in its meaning, it can be interpreted by the court to determine what was intended by both parties at the time of execution. However, Justice Catron disagreed with this ruling and argued that contracts are private agreements between two individuals which should remain binding without judicial interference unless there is evidence of fraud or mistake on either side. He further stated that if courts were allowed to interpret contracts then they would become too powerful and could potentially interfere with contractual rights established under state law. As such, he concluded that any ambiguity in a contract must be resolved through negotiation between both parties rather than through judicial action.