John Tayloe and Elisha Riggs were involved in a dispute that reached the United States Supreme Court. The case revolved around an agreement between the two parties, where John Tayloe agreed to pay Elisha Riggs for certain services rendered. However, when it came time to make payment, John refused on the grounds that he had already paid more than what was owed according to their agreement. In response, Elisha sued him for breach of contract and won at trial court level. On appeal however, the US Supreme Court reversed this decision by ruling that there was no evidence presented which showed any amount due from John beyond what he had already paid out; thus making his refusal justified under law. As such they found in favor of John Tayloe and dismissed all claims against him brought forth by Elisha Riggs

Justice Story delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the plaintiff, John Tayloe, was entitled to recover damages from Elisha Riggs for breach of contract. The majority had held that because a certain clause in the contract between them did not specify what would happen if one party failed to perform their obligations under it, then neither could sue for damages as a result of such failure. Justice Story disagreed with this interpretation and instead argued that when parties enter into an agreement without specifying any particular remedy or consequence for non-performance, they should be allowed to seek whatever legal remedies are available at common law. He further noted that courts have long recognized contracts even when there is no express stipulation regarding remedies or consequences; thus he concluded that Tayloe should be able to recover damages from Riggs since he had been wronged by his breach of contract.