In the case of Bennett R. Truly v. Moses Wanzer, Jabez Harrison and John R. Nicholson, Truly was appealing a decision made by the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia that dismissed his complaint against Wanzer et al., who had been appointed as commissioners to settle certain claims arising from land disputes in Washington D.C.. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling on appeal, finding that there were no errors in law or fact committed by the lower court's decision and thus affirming it without further comment or opinion on its merits. In essence, they found that while Truly may have disagreed with their findings he did not present any evidence to suggest an error had been made which would warrant overturning them on appeal; therefore his claim failed and was dismissed accordingly

In the case of Bennett R. Truly v. Moses Wanzer, Jabez Harrison, and John R. Nicholson, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between Truly and Wanzer had been breached by Wanzer's failure to pay for goods sold under their agreement. The majority opinion held that there was no breach of contract because there were certain conditions in the agreement which had not been met by either party; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly he argued that it should have been up to a jury rather than the court itself to decide if any conditions had not been fulfilled; secondly he argued that even if some of these conditions were unfulfilled they did not excuse Wanzer from his obligation as per their original agreement - namely payment for goods received - since such an obligation could only be discharged through mutual consent or performance on both sides. Ultimately Justice McLean concluded that Truly should have recovered damages against all three defendants due to their failure to fulfill contractual obligations accordingto law