In the case of Horatio N. Slater v. Charles Emerson, the plaintiff in error argued that he was entitled to a judgment against Emerson for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract between them. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence presented by either party which showed any agreement or understanding between them as to the terms and conditions of their relationship, thus making it impossible for Slater to prove his claim against Emerson. Furthermore, even if such an agreement had been established, it would have been unenforceable due to its lack of consideration on both sides and therefore could not be used as grounds for a legal action brought by Slater against Emerson. As a result, the court dismissed Slater's complaint without prejudice and denied him relief from his claims against Emerson.

In the case of Horatio N. Slater v Charles Emerson, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have reversed the decision of the lower court. He believed that there was sufficient evidence to support their ruling and that it should stand as is. He further argued that if any error had been made by either party, it would be more appropriate for them to seek redress through an appeal rather than allowing a reversal from this Court. In addition, he noted how both parties were equally responsible for entering into an agreement without fully understanding its terms and conditions; thus making it difficult to determine who was at fault or whether one side had acted in bad faith or not. Ultimately, Justice Grier concluded his dissent by stating that while he did sympathize with Mr Slater's plight, reversing the decision of the lower court on such grounds would set a dangerous precedent and could lead to future cases being decided based on sympathy instead of facts and law.