The Insurance Company of the Valley of Virginia brought a case against Moses C. Mordecai in order to recover money that was owed for an insurance policy. The company argued that Mordecai had failed to pay premiums on the policy and thus, they were entitled to collect payment from him. However, Mordecai countered by claiming that he had paid all necessary premiums and should not be held liable for any additional payments. After hearing both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Mordecai as it found no evidence indicating he had neglected his obligation under the contract with respect to paying premiums on time or at all. This decision set a precedent which established that parties must provide clear proof when attempting to enforce contractual obligations between two parties; otherwise, those claims may be dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence presented before court proceedings begin.

In this case, the Insurance Company of the Valley of Virginia (plaintiffs) argued that a policy they issued to Moses C. Mordecai (defendant) was void because it had been assigned without their consent and thus violated a clause in the policy prohibiting assignment. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and found in favor of Mordecai, ruling that he was entitled to recover on his policy as there were no provisions preventing him from assigning it or requiring prior approval by the plaintiffs for such an action. In dissent, Justice Grier argued that while there may have been no explicit prohibition against assignment contained within the terms of the contract itself, any attempt at transfer would still be invalid due to its implicit nature; according to Grier's interpretation, allowing assignments would render clauses like those included in Mordecai's policy meaningless since they could easily be circumvented through third-party transfers. He further noted that if parties are allowed to assign contracts without permission then companies like plaintiffs will suffer losses due to lack of control over who is ultimately responsible for fulfilling contractual obligations.