The Union Insurance Company brought a case against John Blair Hoge in the Supreme Court. The company had issued a policy of insurance to Hoge, which was for his benefit and protection. However, when he made a claim on the policy after suffering losses due to fire damage, the company refused to pay out any money. In response, Hoge sued them for breach of contract and won at trial court level. The Union Insurance Company then appealed their case all the way up to the Supreme Court in order to overturn this decision and avoid paying out damages. After hearing both sides' arguments, however, it was determined that there were no grounds upon which they could deny payment as per their contractual obligations with Hoge; thus affirming his victory from lower court proceedings and requiring them to make good on their promise under law.

In the case of The Union Insurance Company v. John Blair Hoge, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract. He reasoned that under Pennsylvania law, contracts must be made with reasonable certainty and consideration; however, in this instance there was no evidence presented to prove either element existed between the parties. Furthermore, Justice Grier noted that even if such elements were present at one point during their relationship they had been subsequently destroyed by mutual agreement or acquiescence on both sides. Thus, he concluded that it would be unjust to allow recovery when neither party could demonstrate any legal obligation existing between them at the time of suit being brought forward.