Joseph Webster brought a case against Hugh T. Reid to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1850. The dispute arose from an agreement between them that Webster would pay Reid $1,000 for certain land and buildings located in Washington D.C., with payments made over time as specified by their contract. When Webster failed to make one of these payments on time, Reid sued him for breach of contract and won a judgment at trial court level ordering payment plus interest and costs amounting to nearly double what was originally owed under the terms of their agreement. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court reversed this decision due to its finding that there had been no proof presented at trial showing any damages suffered by Reid as a result of Webster’s late payment or any other evidence demonstrating why he should be awarded more than what was agreed upon initially between them both parties when they entered into their original contract together. Ultimately then, it was determined that since there were no grounds established for awarding additional compensation beyond what had already been agreed upon between them both parties prior to entering into said contractual arrangement ,the lower court's ruling must be overturned accordingly .

In the case of Joseph Webster v. Hugh T. Reid, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process under the law and was therefore entitled to relief from his conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill. He noted that there were several errors made by both parties during trial proceedings, including an improper charge against the defendant as well as insufficient evidence presented on behalf of either party. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued that it was unjust for a jury to convict someone based solely on circumstantial evidence without any direct proof or testimony from witnesses who could corroborate such claims. In conclusion, he stated that if these issues had been addressed properly then perhaps justice would have prevailed in this case instead of an erroneous verdict being rendered against Mr Webster.