Joseph Smith, appellant, brought a case against the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company (appellees) in 1840. The dispute concerned an alleged breach of contract between Smith and the company. Specifically, Smith claimed that he had been hired to perform certain labor for the company but was not paid what he was owed upon completion of his work. He sought damages from the canal company as compensation for their failure to fulfill their contractual obligations. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Joseph Smith on this matter, awarding him $1,000 plus interest as recompense for his unpaid wages.

In Joseph Smith v. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between Smith and the canal company had been breached. In his dissent, Justice McLean argued that there were material facts in dispute which should have been decided by a jury trial before any judgment could be made on the case. He further noted that it was not clear from the record if either party had acted improperly or violated their agreement in any way. As such, he concluded that summary judgment for either side would be inappropriate without more evidence being presented at trial first. Ultimately, Justice McLean believed that both parties deserved an opportunity to present their cases fully before a jury so they could make an informed decision about who should prevail in this matter of contractual breach.