Samuel Smyth brought a case against Daniel P. Strader, James Perrine, and John H. Woodcock of the firm Strader, Perrine & Co., claiming that he was owed money from an unpaid debt. The defendants argued that they were not liable for the debt because it had been contracted by their former partner who had since died before payment could be made to Smyth. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants on grounds that there was no evidence presented to prove any liability on behalf of them or their firm as successors to the deceased partner's estate; therefore they were not responsible for repayment of this particular debt.

In the case of Samuel Smyth v. Daniel P. Strader, James Perrine, and John H. Woodcock, late partners under the firm of Strader, Perrine & Co., Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for breach of contract from the defendants as they had failed to deliver goods according to their agreement with him. He noted that although there were some discrepancies between what was agreed upon and what was actually received by Smyth, these differences did not amount to such an extent as would excuse or justify non-performance on behalf of either party; thus it should be considered a breach by Strader et al.. Furthermore, Justice McLean contended that even if there were any ambiguities in terms or conditions within this particular contract - which he believed there weren't - then those ambiguities should have been resolved against them due to their superior knowledge and understanding regarding business matters compared with Smyth's lack thereof. As such he concluded that judgment should have been rendered in favor of Smyth instead so as to compensate him for his losses incurred through this transaction gone wrong.