The Rugen Buhring case was a dispute between the United States and a claimant over an alleged breach of contract. The claimant, John Rugen Buhring, had contracted with the US government to provide supplies for military posts in 1812. He claimed that he had not been paid for his services and sought compensation from the Court of Claims. The Supreme Court heard arguments on both sides before ruling in favor of Mr. Buhring, finding that he was entitled to payment under his contract with the US government. In its decision, it held that contracts made by federal officers were binding upon their successors and could not be avoided or disregarded without just cause or legal authority. This ruling established important precedent regarding contractual obligations between private parties and public entities such as governments or corporations.

In The Rugen -- Buhring case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a claimant could recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. The majority opinion held that the claimant had no right to sue because he did not have legal title or possession of the property in question. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision and argued that it should be possible for a party who has suffered loss due to another's breach of contract to seek compensation even if they do not possess legal title or physical possession of the subject matter. He reasoned that since contracts are based on mutual trust between parties, when one party breaches their agreement then it is reasonable for them to compensate any losses incurred by their counterparty as a result. Furthermore, Justice Story noted that allowing claimants without title or possession rights would encourage people with legitimate claims against those who wrongfully withhold property from them and thus promote justice in society more broadly.