In this Supreme Court case, Samuel A. White, William M. Cooke, Chambers Etler, John H. Baldwin, Henry J. Huck as administrator of Herman H. Rodgers and in his own right, John P O'Brien Oliver H Stapp and Thomas Rooke were the plaintiffs in error while Albert T Burnley was the defendant in error. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties for sale of certain lands located near Washington City (now known as Washington D C). The plaintiff alleged that they had paid all money due under said contract but that Burnley refused to convey title to them or refund their money despite repeated demands by them for him to do so; thus they sought relief through legal action against him before the court seeking damages for breach of contract and specific performance on part of Burnley with respect to conveying title over said land or returning their payments made towards it if he could not fulfill his obligations under said agreement .The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence presented by either party regarding any fraud committed during formation or execution of such agreement ,the lower court's ruling should be affirmed which found both parties liable according to terms stated within such agreement .

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the court should have considered whether or not a contract had been formed between Burnley and White. He believed that if there was an agreement in place, then it would be binding on both parties regardless of any subsequent changes to the terms. Furthermore, he argued that even if no formal contract existed, there were still certain obligations which arose from their negotiations and dealings with each other. As such, he concluded that White could recover damages for breach of those obligations as well as for fraud committed by Burnley during their interactions. Ultimately however his opinion did not prevail and the majority held in favor of Burnley's position.