In the case of Richard C. Stockton v. James C. Ford, Stockton appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court ruled in favor of Ford on an action for debt and damages brought by Stockton against him. The dispute arose from a contract between the two men that was made when they were both residents of New Jersey but which had been breached while they lived in different states; as such, it raised questions about whether or not state law should be applied to govern their agreement and its breach. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that although there may have been some ambiguity regarding which state's laws should apply due to their change in residence during the course of their contract, ultimately it was up to each party involved to make sure that any contracts entered into would comply with whatever applicable laws might exist at any given time - regardless of where either party resided - so as not leave them open-ended or subject to interpretation later on down the line if circumstances changed over time.

In the case of Richard C. Stockton v. James C. Ford, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have reversed the judgment of the lower court and granted Stockton's appeal for damages against Ford due to his breach of contract. According to Taney, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial that showed that Ford had made an agreement with Stockton regarding certain property rights and then failed to fulfill his obligations under said agreement; thus, it was reasonable for Stockton to seek compensation from him as a result of this breach. Furthermore, since no other party could be held liable for any losses incurred by either side due to this broken promise on behalf of Ford, it would be unjust not award damages in favor or plaintiff (Stockton). In conclusion, Chief Justice Taney believed that justice demanded such an outcome and therefore dissented from majority opinion which denied appellant’s claim against defendant (Ford).