Moses Wanzer and Jabez Harrison, appellants in this case, were suing Bennett R. and J. H. Truly for the recovery of a debt owed to them by the defendants from an earlier transaction involving cotton bales that had been sold to them on credit terms. The appellants argued that they should be able to recover their debt as it was not paid when due according to the contract between both parties; however, the respondents countered with a plea of set-off which stated that they had already paid off part of what was owed through other transactions made between themselves and Moses Wanzer prior to this one being brought before court. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bennett R. and J. H., finding that since there existed no proof or evidence presented by either party regarding any outstanding balance still owing after all previous payments were taken into account then no further action could be taken against them for payment on this particular claim at hand as it would amount to double jeopardy if so done without proper documentation proving otherwise firstly provided beforehand within reasonable time limits given during proceedings thus far conducted up until now accordingly concluded herewith today's date ending hereby forthwith immediately thereafter henceforth forevermore amen!

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that Moses Wanzer and Jabez Harrison had a valid contract with Bennett R. and J. H. Truly to purchase land in Texas for $2,000 worth of goods from their store in Mississippi. He believed that the appellants had fulfilled all conditions necessary to complete the transaction by delivering an invoice for $2,000 worth of goods as well as paying any taxes due on them at the time they were shipped from Mississippi to Texas. Furthermore, he noted that there was no evidence presented during trial which showed any fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of either party involved in this transaction; thus it should be considered legally binding under existing laws governing contracts between individuals across state lines at the time. As such, Justice McLean concluded that both parties should have been held accountable for fulfilling their obligations according to said contract and not allowed to simply walk away without consequence when one side failed to do so as was decided by majority opinion in this case.