In the case of William B. Sutton, Samuel L. Griffith, and James Sutton v Stacy B. Bancroft et al., the plaintiffs in error were copartners under the firm and style of Sutton, Griffith & Co., while defendants in error were copartners under the firm and style of Bancroft. The dispute between them was over a contract for goods that had been sold by one party to another with payment due at a later date; however, when it came time to pay up there was an issue as to whether or not all parties involved had agreed upon certain terms regarding interest payments on late fees owed by one side or another. Ultimately, it was determined that both sides should be held accountable for their respective obligations according to what they had originally agreed upon within their contract agreement - thus affirming that any changes made after signing must be mutually accepted before being enforced legally.

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice Grier argued that the plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. He noted that while they had provided some documents and testimony from witnesses, these were not enough to establish a valid contract between them and the defendants. Furthermore, he argued that even if there was an agreement in place between them, it did not necessarily mean that it could be enforced by law as contracts must meet certain requirements for legal enforceability. In conclusion, Justice Grier concluded that due to lack of proof on behalf of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants, their suit should have been dismissed without prejudice.