This Supreme Court case involves Thomas Williams, the administrator of Benjamin J. Baldwin who has passed away, and John W. and William Benedict trading under the firm and style of Benedict & Benedict. The dispute between them is over a debt that was owed to Baldwin before his death by the Benedicts for goods they had purchased from him in 1848. Williams argued that he should be able to collect on this debt as it was due prior to Baldwin's passing while the Benedicts argued that since there were no legal proceedings taken against them during Baldwins lifetime, they did not owe any money after his death as per state law at the time which stated debts must be collected within two years or else become void upon a debtor’s death. Ultimately, it was decided by Chief Justice Taney that although state laws may have voided such debts if left uncollected for more than two years after their due date; however federal common law overruled those statutes when applied in cases involving interstate commerce like this one where goods had been shipped across multiple states making it an issue of national importance rather than just local concern thus allowing Williams to collect on behalf of Baldwin’s estate despite its being past two year statute limit set forth by state law at time

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff should have been allowed to present evidence in support of his claim. He believed that a jury should decide whether or not there was an implied contract between the parties and if so, what damages were due. The majority had ruled against allowing such evidence on technical grounds related to how long it took for the plaintiff to file suit after learning about their potential cause of action. Justice McLean felt this was too restrictive and would lead to injustice in cases where plaintiffs may be unaware they have a valid legal claim until much later than when it first arose. He also noted that even if there was no express agreement between them, equity could still provide relief based on principles like estoppel or quantum meruit which require consideration of all relevant facts before making a decision as opposed to relying solely on procedural rules.