Peleg Wilbur, appellant, brought a case against Samson Almy in the Supreme Court. The dispute was over an agreement between them that stated Wilbur would pay $500 to Almy for his share of land owned by both parties. Wilbur paid the money but then sought to recover it from Almy on the grounds that he had not received title and possession of his portion of the land as promised. The court found in favor of Almy because there was no evidence presented that showed any fraud or mistake on behalf of either party during their negotiations or contract formation process. Furthermore, since they were both competent adults at the time they entered into this agreement and neither one could prove any wrongdoing occurred, it was determined that each should be held accountable for their own actions and thus upheld its original terms - meaning Wilbur must keep up with his end of payment without receiving anything further from Almy.

In the case of Peleg Wilbur v. Samson Almy, Justice Catron delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal law. He asserted that the court should have applied federal common law to this case and not relied solely on state statutes as they had done. According to Justice Catron, if there is no applicable statute or precedent from either party's home state then it is necessary for courts to look at general principles of equity and justice when deciding cases such as these. Furthermore, he argued that since both parties were citizens of different states (New York and Rhode Island) then it would be appropriate for them to abide by a uniform set of laws regardless of their respective states' laws. In conclusion, Justice Catron believed that the majority had erred in its ruling due to its reliance on only one jurisdiction’s statutes instead looking more broadly at established legal principles from across all jurisdictions involved in order make a fair judgment about this particular dispute between two individuals living in different states