Moses Wanzer brought a case against Tullius C. Tupper and John H. Rollins, who were doing business under the firm of Tupper & Rollins. The dispute was over an unpaid debt for goods that had been sold to Wanzer by the defendants in 1847. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wanzer, finding that he was entitled to recover from the defendants all costs associated with bringing suit as well as damages for nonpayment of his debt plus interest on those damages at 6%. This ruling established precedent regarding how courts should handle cases involving breach of contract when it comes to awarding costs and interest on debts owed but not paid according to agreed-upon terms.

In the case of Moses Wanzer v. Tullius C. Tupper and John H. Rollins, Under the Firm of Tupper & Rollins, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court had erred in its decision to reverse an earlier judgment against Wanzer for failing to pay his debt to Tupper & Rollins. He asserted that while it was true that there were some irregularities with respect to how the original proceedings were conducted, they did not rise to such a level as would warrant overturning what had already been decided by another court of competent jurisdiction. Furthermore, he argued that even if those irregularities could be considered sufficient grounds for reversing the previous judgment, then this should have only applied prospectively rather than retroactively since Wanzer had already acted on his belief that he owed nothing further under said judgement and thus any reversal at this point would cause him undue hardship and prejudice without providing any benefit or relief whatsoever either party involved in this dispute.