In this case, Alexander Rey, William R. Marshall and Joseph M. Marshall (collectively known as “Marshall & Co”) brought a suit against James W. Simpson for breach of contract regarding the sale of certain goods to him on credit terms. The plaintiffs argued that they had delivered the goods in question to Simpson but he failed to pay them according to their agreement; however, Simpson contended that he was not liable because there was no written evidence of any such agreement between himself and Marshall & Co., which violated the Statute of Frauds at the time. Ultimately, after reviewing both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marshall & Co., finding that although there was no written document proving an agreement between themselves and Simpson existed, sufficient oral testimony provided by witnesses established its validity under common law principles despite violating statutory requirements set forth by state laws at the time.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice Daniel argued that the court should have found in favor of Marshall & Co. He believed that when Simpson had accepted a check from them for $1,000 and then failed to pay it back, he was liable for damages as if he had taken out a loan with interest. Furthermore, Justice Daniel pointed out that there was no evidence presented at trial to suggest any agreement between Simpson and Marshall & Co., other than his acceptance of their check. Therefore, according to Justice Daniel's interpretation of the law on contracts and obligations in this case, Simpson should be held responsible for paying back both principal plus interest due on the debt incurred by accepting their check.