William Wiseman, the plaintiff in error, brought a case against Achille Chiappella to the Supreme Court. The dispute was over an unpaid debt of $2,000 that had been incurred by Wiseman and guaranteed by Chiappella. In 1854, Wiseman sued for payment but lost because he failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had paid off any part of the debt himself before asking for repayment from Chiappella. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was determined that there were no grounds on which to reverse or modify the judgment made at trial court level as Wiseman still did not have enough proof of his own payments towards this debt prior to seeking reimbursement from Chiappella. Therefore, it was ruled in favor of Achille Chiapalla and William Wisemans' claim for repayment was denied.

In the case of William Wiseman v. Achille Chiappella, Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given a fair trial and should be granted a new one. He noted that there was no evidence presented to prove either party's claim, yet the jury found for the defendant without any explanation or reasoning as to why they did so. Furthermore, he pointed out that several witnesses were excluded from testifying on behalf of Wiseman despite their relevance to his case and this exclusion may have influenced the outcome of the trial unfairly against him. In conclusion, Justice Curtis believed it would be unjust if Wiseman was denied another chance at proving his claims before an impartial jury with all relevant testimony taken into consideration.