This Supreme Court case was between Cadwallader Wallace, the plaintiff in error, and Josiah C. Parker, the defendant in error. The dispute arose from a contract made between them for land that had been surveyed by Wallace and sold to Parker. After payment of part of the purchase price, it was discovered that there were errors in the survey which caused some parts of the property to be omitted from what had been agreed upon. As a result, Parker refused to pay any more money until he received an additional deed for those portions not included on his original deed due to these errors. The court found that since both parties knew about this discrepancy at time of sale but still went ahead with their agreement anyway; they should have known better than rely solely on an imperfect survey as evidence when making such contracts and thus must bear responsibility for its consequences themselves without recourse against each other or third parties who may have contributed towards it indirectly like surveyors or scriveners involved in preparing documents related thereto.

In the dissenting opinion of Cadwallader Wallace v. Josiah C. Parker, Justice McLean argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not altered by judicial interpretation or construction. He believed that if one party had made an error in drafting the agreement, they should bear the consequences of their mistake rather than have it corrected by a court ruling. In this case, he felt that since both parties were aware of what was agreed upon at the time they entered into their contract, any subsequent changes to its terms would be unfair and unjustified. Furthermore, he noted that even though there may have been some ambiguity in certain parts of the document due to poor wording or lack thereof, such issues could still be resolved without resorting to judicial intervention if both sides were willing to negotiate in good faith with each other until an acceptable solution was reached. Ultimately Justice McLean concluded his dissent by stating that while courts do possess authority over contracts when necessary for justice’s sake; however here no such necessity existed and thus interference from them would only serve to undermine public confidence in private agreements going forward which is why he ultimately voted against upholding Parker's motion for summary judgment on this matter