This Supreme Court case involved William Wiggins, James M. Jones, and John B. Weller as complainants against John B. Gray and Knowles Taylor. The dispute was over a contract between the parties that had been made in 1856 for the sale of certain real estate located in California by Gray to Wiggins et al., with payment due on or before June 1st, 1857; however, no payments were ever made by either party after this date despite multiple attempts at collection from both sides throughout the years following their agreement until finally reaching the Supreme Court in 1860. Ultimately it was decided that although there had been some delay on behalf of Wiggins et al., they were still entitled to recover possession of said property since all conditions precedent set forth within their contract had already been fulfilled prior to its expiration date - thus making any further action taken by them moot - while also ruling that Gray’s failure to make timely payment rendered him liable for damages incurred during his period of non-payment which would be determined through an assessment conducted by a court appointed commissioner upon completion of proceedings related thereto.

In the case of William Wiggins, James M. Jones, and John B. Weller v. John B. Gray and Knowles Taylor, the complainants argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of their right to vote in a congressional election due to an unconstitutional law passed by Congress which required them to take an oath affirming their loyalty to the Union before being allowed to cast a ballot. The majority opinion held that this was not a violation of constitutional rights as it did not interfere with any fundamental right or privilege secured by the Constitution; however, Justice Grier dissented from this opinion on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had no power under Article I Section 4 Clause 1 of the Constitution (which grants Congress authority over elections) to pass such laws; secondly he contended that even if such laws were within its powers then they would still be unconstitutional as they violated both freedom of speech and freedom from religious tests for officeholders guaranteed by Amendments I & VI respectively. In conclusion Justice Grier believed these laws should have been struck down as unconstitutional because they infringed upon citizens' basic rights without providing any reasonable justification for doing so.